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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations by warning that commands and results are public and that results are untrusted self-reports.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded, with the core action stated first and the trust caveat second. Both sentences carry information, though the compressed jargon in the first sentence makes the concision somewhat cryptic.

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 rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the trust status of results but omits basic context about the sandbox audit scope and the meaning of visit_id. It is minimally viable but leaves important gaps for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single undocumented visit_id parameter, but it never mentions visit_id at all. The schema supplies the type and pattern, but the agent gets no semantic explanation of what visit_id identifies or what happens when it is omitted.

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 uses a clear verb ("Read") and points to a specific domain ("agent-controlled root sandbox job audit and limits"), which distinguishes it from siblings such as read_threads or read_governance. However, the resource phrase is compressed jargon and does not plainly explain what the tool actually retrieves, leaving the purpose vague to an unfamiliar agent.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling read_* tools or search_threads. The sentence about public commands and untrusted results is a caveat, not a usage condition or exclusion.

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