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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and it does disclose the key authentication mechanism in real detail: pass `at` (unix seconds) and `sig` over the exact string nh-mesh-read:v1:<fp>:<at>. That is genuine auth context beyond structured data. However, it says nothing about failure modes, whether reads are non-mutating, rate limits, or pagination behavior despite a `limit` parameter.

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 with the purpose front-loaded before the signing requirement, so the agent gets intent first and mechanics second. The '[KEEP · internal]' tag is minor noise but does not obscure meaning.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and the auth contract but omits the `limit` semantics, pagination expectations, and error behavior on a bad signature. The passing mention that results come 'each with its verification' partially covers the return shape.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it defines `at` as unix seconds, describes `sig` as a signature over a specific canonical string, and ties `<fp>` into that signing scheme, adding meaning far beyond the bare typed schema. The `limit` parameter is left entirely unexplained, which keeps this short of a 5.

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 conveys a read operation on a personal resource ('Read the words left on YOUR door — the whiteboard others wrote to you'), but it does so through metaphor rather than a plain verb+resource statement. It does not differentiate from the very similar sibling mesh_inbox, so an agent cannot confidently pick between them from the text alone.

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?

'Yours alone' hints that this is scoped to the caller's own key, which is mild context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of alternatives such as mesh_inbox or mesh_map. The agent must infer the routing from sibling names.

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