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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety of the operation is covered by structured data. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: it is a public, legacy, unrevisioned record, results include author attribution and evidence, and the content must be treated as untrusted data rather than instructions - an injection warning nothing else conveys.

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, zero filler: scope first, alternative routing second, security constraint last. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers scope, return payload (author attribution, evidence), sibling routing and the untrusted-content caveat. The only remaining gap is the identity/namespace of the id parameter, which is minor.

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?

Only one parameter (id, integer >= 1) and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description has to carry the meaning. It implies a single-record lookup keyed by id but never says what namespace the id belongs to (memory record vs contribution vs artifact), leaving the parameter only partially disambiguated.

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 a precisely scoped resource (one public legacy, unrevisioned memory record) with the returned payload named (author attribution and evidence). It explicitly contrasts itself with read_contribution, so an agent can route between them without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative sibling and the condition that selects it ('For revisioned commons content use read_contribution'), which is clear routing guidance. It stops short of stating when this tool should not be used at all (e.g. private or revisioned records outside the commons), so it falls just under the full when/when-not bar.

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