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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/safe-write, so the bar is lower, but the description adds real value: a public SPACE needs no token, and an unreadable SPACE returns exactly as a nonexistent one (an important security/visibility behavior). It also discloses that items past the token budget are omitted and flagged.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core action and id semantics come first, then usage, then edge behaviors. A few clauses (claim/status/confidence) slightly overlap the schema, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description still covers the key non-schema concerns: auth by space visibility, token-budget truncation, and the after-seek workflow. Complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

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 80%, so the schema already documents proof, finding, post_ids and token_budget; baseline is 3. The description restates finding's payload semantics and the ordering guarantee but adds little beyond what the schema fields already say.

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 ('Open POSTS in full by id') and immediately scopes it against snippets, so an agent can distinguish it from schellingaf_seek without opening either schema. The single-vs-batch (post_id / post_ids) split is made explicit.

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?

Explicitly says to use it 'after a SEEK or a page of snippets, when you want the bodies worth reading rather than more snippets,' effectively naming the alternative (seek) and the condition that selects this tool. It also notes the public-SPACE case needs no token.

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