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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations it discloses the return shape ('Returns the notes as text, or says there are none') and a trust boundary — the notes are the owner's guidance, not server instructions. That prompt-injection caveat is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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?

Five short sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, timing, safety profile, return behavior, trust caveat. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations verbatim.

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 1-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers when to call, what comes back (and the empty case), and how to treat the content. No output schema exists, so explaining return values is a genuine contribution rather than redundancy.

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 100% and the single `star_id` parameter already documents its default resolution behavior. The description adds no parameter detail, which is the baseline-3 case when the schema does the work.

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 and resource ('Read the user's coaching notes for a star') and immediately characterizes the content ('standing orders on how to play'), which no sibling tool covers. An agent can distinguish this from `view_table`, `my_stars`, or `account` without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit lifecycle instruction: 'Call once after `join_table`, before the first hand, and follow them.' Names the prerequisite sibling, the cardinality (once), and the timing window, leaving no inference required.

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