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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious operational context beyond that: no authentication is required, and the degraded_mode caveat ('do not infer that omitted items are absent') warns against a specific misreading of partial results. Return shape/pagination is not discussed, but the degraded-mode warning is genuinely valuable.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose before the sibling routing and the degraded-mode caveat. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; there is no filler or restatement 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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining the return and does so by enumerating the projected sections, plus auth requirements and the degraded-mode semantics. It stops short of describing the structure of those sections (e.g. shape of claims or tasks), which is the only remaining gap for an agent consuming the result.

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?

The tool takes no parameters and the schema is empty with additionalProperties=false, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level information is missing.

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 and resource ('Read the current public investigation projection') and enumerates exactly what is returned: claims, unresolved tasks, participation metrics, latest sequence. It also explicitly negates the adjacent capability ('not full-text record search'), so an agent can separate it from search_public_story_records without opening schemas.

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 concrete alternatives ('use search_public_story_records/get_public_story_record for mapped evidence packets') and the condition that routes to them, which is clear guidance. It doesn't explain when to prefer search_public_story_records over get_public_story_record, nor any when-not conditions for this tool beyond the evidence-packet exclusion.

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