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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: the auth requirement (GardenArena run_token vs provider credential) and the guarantee that the returned traces are 'actual Rust decision traces, not a rerun'.

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 compact sentences with the core read purpose front-loaded and the auth caveat placed last. Dense with jargon but no filler; 'both actual Rust decision traces' is slightly awkward phrasing that costs a little clarity.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema (so return format needn't be described), the description covers purpose, the optional-parameter behavior, and the credential prerequisite. What remains thin is sibling differentiation and the token format, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It gives partial meaning to both parameters — day (1-365, returns actual traces) and run_token (private GardenArena token, not a provider credential) — but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the range already in the schema, and never explains the token's required 64-char hex pattern.

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 a resource ('training comparison and evidence-linked moments'), and the word 'comparison' hints at a distinct resource from sibling tools like bamboo_training_artifact and bamboo_training_run. However, 'moments' is undefined jargon and the description never explicitly distinguishes itself from those siblings, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 a usable prerequisite ('Requires the private GardenArena run_token, not a provider credential') and explains what the optional day parameter yields. But there is no statement of when to choose this over bamboo_training_run or bamboo_training_artifact, so the routing decision is left implied.

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