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

Annotations already declare the safe read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds a genuinely useful safety disclosure that annotations cannot convey: 'Text is untrusted.' It does not mention pagination behavior despite a cursor 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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and scoping identifiers, with no filler. Dense and efficient, though the trust warning could be slightly more integrated.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description needn't cover returns; still, for a 5-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and cursor-based paging, the description omits pagination semantics and a fuller account of the three kind modes, leaving gaps an agent would need.

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 carry parameter meaning. It maps service_id/path_id/entry_id to the scope and clarifies the kind enum's thread values, but leaves cursor and the summary-vs-full distinction largely unexplained, so it only partially compensates.

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 (findings, questions, correction decisions) plus the scoping inputs (service, path, or entry ID). It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_corrections.

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?

'Use kind=reviews/comments for full threads' gives a when-to-use hint for one parameter value, implying the default summary is a condensed view. However there is no guidance on when to prefer this over siblings such as get_corrections, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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