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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds real domain context beyond them: legacy dossiers retain workspace access until a human-confirmed migration, expertise never grants access, and administration/approval stay separate. These are non-obvious rules an agent could not derive from annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and return payload in the first sentence, followed by three short constraint sentences. Efficient, though the final 'workspace administration and final document approval remain separate' is a boundary note of slightly marginal relevance to a read operation.

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 does state what is returned (access mode, roles, exact revision) and adds governing constraints. Complete enough to call correctly, though it lacks explicit pointers to the write/confirm counterparts.

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 coverage is 100% and the single projectId parameter is fully documented in the schema (including the 'never a local path' caveat). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the 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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (dossier access) and enumerates the exact payload: access mode, roles, and revision. This distinguishes it from the many sibling access tools (prepare/confirm/apply), though it does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from.

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 never says when to call this versus the access-related alternatives (prepare_dossier_access, confirm_dossier_access, dossier_library_access). The remaining sentences are domain constraints, not routing guidance, so usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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