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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation, which is useful, but it says nothing about behavior when the path does not exist, whether the returned content is truncated, or whether paths are case-sensitive — gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with the action front-loaded, followed by examples that each illustrate a distinct content type. Nothing is redundant and no wording could be removed without losing information.

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 one-parameter, non-mutating read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential: what it does, the resource, and path formatting. Missing only edge-case behavior (missing file, large file) which is minor at this complexity.

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%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description goes beyond 'The file's path in the repository' by showing two concrete path formats, communicating the directory-slash-filename convention and that paths are repository-relative.

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?

Specific verb plus resource: 'Read one file in the firm's repository', with two concrete example paths that make the scope tangible. The verb 'read' implicitly separates it from edit_firm_file, but the description never names that sibling, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 examples ('gtm/playbook.md (which angle earns replies per buying moment)' or 'rules/house.md') hint at when to reach for this tool — looking up firm policy or playbook content. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus firm_files or what_the_firm_knows, and no stated exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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