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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: an agent key (read or write scope) is required to call it, which the annotations do not convey. It stops short of describing pagination limits or result volume, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and record shape, followed by the two facts an agent needs before calling (optional filters, key requirement). No filler or repetition of schema detail.

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?

For a 9-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what the rows contain and the auth requirement, and the schema fully covers filtering and paging. A note on default page size or ordering would close the remaining gap, but nothing essential is missing.

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%, so every parameter including date formats, cursor semantics, CSV format, and the trooth_id default is already documented in the schema. The description only adds that filters are optional, which is baseline-level value.

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 resource (read receipts) and enumerates exactly what each record carries: which agents, which pages, when, and whether identity was proven via Web Bot Auth. This clearly separates it from sibling list tools such as semanto_pages_changed and semanto_versions_list.

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?

It notes that all filters are optional and that an agent key is required, which tells the agent it can call with zero arguments. However, it never says when to prefer this over a sibling like semanto_pages_changed, nor does it state any exclusions or preconditions beyond auth.

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