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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: paths are host-local, relative paths resolve under /srv/app, and directories return a listing rather than erroring. It omits edge cases such as file size limits, binary content, or permission failures, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the two operational facts an agent needs. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 single-parameter read tool with readOnlyHint annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, path resolution, and directory behavior. Remaining unknowns (output format for files, error behavior) are either minor or excluded by the tool's simplicity.

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 is 3, but the description adds resolution semantics the schema does not: relative paths are anchored at /srv/app and directories are valid inputs with listing behavior. That meaningfully disambiguates the single path parameter.

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?

"Read a file on the ops console host (read-only)" states a specific verb and resource plus the execution scope, which separates it from fetch_url and exec_command. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use for non-host reads, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 description implies usage (reading files on the ops host) and the read-only parenthetical steers away from write workflows, but it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to exec_command, fetch_url, or list_services. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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