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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing what the read spans — every fact, correction and retraction, with actor and timestamp — which tells the agent to expect an event history, not just a current snapshot.

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, front-loaded with the usage trigger and then the scope of the read. There is no filler and no repetition of the title.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description conveys enough about the returned content (facts, corrections, retractions, actor, time) for an agent to interpret results. It omits pagination/volume expectations and any explicit relationship to siblings, keeping it just short of complete.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including include_history's default. The phrases 'currently true' and 'how it got that way' loosely map to current-vs-historical facts, but add no format or syntax detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description gives a specific verb ('read') and a specific resource scope ('one entity'), and clarifies that the read covers facts, corrections, and retractions rather than a raw record. It implicitly separates this from the mutation siblings (record_fact, correct_fact, retract_fact), though it never names an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 opens with an explicit trigger phrase ('Use to read what is currently true about one entity'), which is clear usage context. It does not state when NOT to use it or point to a sibling like list_changes for cross-entity queries, so no exclusion guidance is present.

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