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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the description's burden is light. It adds that access is via a public report slug and that the payload is status plus progress lines, but says nothing about freshness, staleness, or what happens for an unknown/invalid slug.

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?

A single sentence with the resource, scope, and access constraint front-loaded; every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

With one simple required parameter, full schema coverage, and complete safety annotations, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly, and the description even sketches the return payload. Only the behavior for invalid or missing slugs is unaddressed, which is minor for a read-only tool.

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 100% — the slug parameter already documents its pattern, length bounds, and origin in /r/{slug} URLs. The description adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond restating that a public report slug is required, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

Specific verb ('Read') plus a precise resource ('current status and progress lines for a Corpus Plan audit') scoped to a public report slug. It is distinguishable from get_public_report by focusing on progress/status rather than the report body, but it never names or contrasts the sibling explicitly.

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?

The phrase 'behind a public report slug' implies the access model (public, unauthenticated, read-only) and the required input, so usage is inferable. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus get_public_report or describe_corpus_plan, and no exclusions.

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