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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). The description adds the 'owned' constraint and 'live state', giving some additional context, but it does not disclose what metadata or state details are returned, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no unnecessary words. Every part contributes meaning.

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 read tool with 1 param and strong annotations, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. 'Metadata and live state' is vague—there is no output schema, so the description should clarify what data the response contains. The ownership prerequisite is mentioned, but no other edge cases or behavioral details are covered.

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 schema has one param (bagId) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. The param name 'bagId' and the phrase 'an owned TON Storage bag' make its purpose reasonably clear, but the description does not explicitly explain the field format or that it identifies the bag. Since the param is self-evident from the tool name, this is adequate but not strong.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' with a clear resource ('TON Storage bag') and scope ('owned'), distinguishing this from sibling tools like storage.create_bag, storage.delete_bag, and storage.list_bags. It clearly indicates this is for reading details of a single bag rather than listing or mutating.

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 when to use this tool (to inspect a specific owned bag) and notes an ownership prerequisite. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough given the sibling tool names (e.g., list_bags for listing).

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