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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds what annotations cannot — a 50 MiB read ceiling, a 32 KiB chunk bound, a resumable continuation protocol via returned nextOffsetBytes/version, and a required account-bound computer:read OAuth scope. It stops short of describing error behavior (truncation, hash mismatch rejection, symlink refusal) or rate limits.

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?

Three clauses in two sentences with no filler: capability and size limits first, continuation protocol second, routing alternative and auth requirement last. Every clause carries actionable information for calling the tool.

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?

With six parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does the right extra work by naming the response fields an agent must use to continue reading. Gaps remain around failure modes (hash/version mismatch, oversized files) and what exactly constitutes the 'authorized workspace' scope, which a chunked reader would benefit from.

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 earns more by explaining the continuation contract — that returned nextOffsetBytes and version fields feed back into offsetBytes/expectedFileVersion — which no schema field states. Minor friction: the response field names it cites ('nextOffsetBytes', 'version') differ from the input names ('offsetBytes', 'expectedFileVersion'), so an agent must infer the mapping.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Read ... from the authorized workspace') and pins down both scope (50 MiB cap, 32 KiB chunks) and the sibling it replaces ('for managed-home short text use exza_read_home_text'). An agent can separate it from exza_read_home_text, exza_read_home_text_files, and exza_list_workspace_files without opening a 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?

It gives one explicit alternative and the condition selecting it: managed-home short text goes to exza_read_home_text. It does not address when to prefer this over exza_get_commander_file_info for metadata or over listing first, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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