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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld=false, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new operational facts: it reads no indexed content and bills nothing. That cost/side-effect disclosure is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry. It still does not mention latency or that the full document is very large, but the added value is real.

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 tight sentences with zero waste: purpose and contents first, then the scoping behavior, then a docs link. The most decision-relevant information (what it returns and that it is free/side-effect-free) is 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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the job of describing the return payload and does so thoroughly — it enumerates the reference sections an agent will receive. Combined with the schema's note on full-vs-narrowed size, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and understand the result.

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 100%, and both parameters are already documented in the schema including examples ('sponsors, resolve, transcript, monitors or dates') and the ~23,000-character size note. The description's 'optional topic narrows it to a method or subject' merely restates the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Returns the reference for the typed arcmira client') and enumerates exactly what that reference contains: method arguments, return fields, entity ID rules, examples, errors, budget/monitor rules, doc links. It ties itself to the sibling execute tools by naming them as the consumers of the client, so an agent can tell it apart from arcmira_execute_read/write at a glance.

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 link to the execute tools is implied ('the typed arcmira client the execute tools run'), which suggests consulting this before executing, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative. 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.