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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: 'Private evidence is excluded,' which tells the agent the response is deliberately scoped and may omit data it might expect. It stops short of covering auth requirements or not-found/error behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences, no filler, with the core action ('Read a public outcome') and its payload front-loaded before the scoping caveat. 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned facets (conditions, evidence status, version, freshness) and the exclusion of private evidence, so an agent knows roughly what it gets back. It is a single-parameter read tool, so little more is needed, though error/empty-result behavior is unstated.

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?

There is one required parameter and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries some burden. It conveys that the id identifies a public outcome, but adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema's own pattern and maxLength constraints. Marginal value over the structured fields.

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+resource ('Read a public outcome') and enumerates the payload it returns (conditions, evidence status, version, freshness), which tells an agent exactly what this tool fetches. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling search_outcomes, and the title's word 'experience' does not match the name/description's 'outcome', leaving a small routing ambiguity.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the single-item lookup used when it already has an outcome_id. No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternative (e.g. search_outcomes for discovery) is provided, so the agent must guess the boundary between this and its sibling.

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