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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It specifies a read operation and the returned fields, but does not mention revert behavior for invalid IDs or other edge cases. The word 'Read' implies non-mutating, but no explicit safety guarantee is given.

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?

The description is two concise sentences, immediately identifying the operation and outputs. No redundancy or filler; well-structured and front-loaded.

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 simple single-parameter read tool, the description covers what it does and what it returns. It does not address edge cases like non-existent IDs, but the essential information for selection and invocation is present. Given the lack of output schema, listing the return fields provides sufficient context.

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?

The input schema already documents the single parameter with 100% coverage ('Numeric action ID'). The description adds only the phrase 'by its numeric ID,' which does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool reads a single logged agent action from the Tracea ActionLog contract using a numeric ID. The verb 'Read' and the scope 'single' effectively distinguish it from sibling tools like get_agent_actions.

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 phrase 'single... by its numeric ID' implies this is the tool to use when a specific action ID is known, contrasting with list-style siblings. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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