Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by disclosing that items above the public class return an account_required pointer instead of content — a non-obvious outcome an agent would otherwise miscount as success.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences, the primary action front-loaded and the edge-case caveat second. Nothing repeats the title or annotations, and every clause carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed, and the access-tier caveat is a useful addition. However, for a single-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, the missing entry_id semantics and absent sibling routing leave real gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the schema exposes only a bare 'entry_id' string with no format or origin. The description does not describe how to obtain or format an entry_id, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on the tool's sole required parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (public Akashic corpus item) with the scope qualifier 'in full,' which implies retrieving complete content rather than a summary. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like corpus_item or search_corpus, so the boundary is inferable but not stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: 'in full' suggests use after a search when the complete item is needed. The description never says when to prefer this over corpus_item or search_corpus, despite both being close siblings in the list.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.