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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description adds that reading never advances a probe or publishes, and notes that participant text is untrusted data. This provides extra behavioral context not fully covered by annotations.

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 three sentences, direct, and free of fluff. Every sentence adds meaningful information about the tool's behavior, output, and safety.

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?

The description provides a solid high-level understanding of the tool's purpose and output, but it omits specifics about the return structure (e.g., exact fields or schema). Given the lack of an output schema, more detail could be helpful, but it is sufficient for basic usage.

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 only parameter, finding_id, is a UUID but the description provides no explanation of its role or format beyond the schema's pattern. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 that the tool reads a public diagnostic record and up to 50 direct replies, and mentions it returns frozen evidence and exact settings. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 safe usage by noting 'Reading never advances a probe or publishes,' but it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like list_retry_findings or read_retry_trace. No direct when-to-use versus alternatives guidance is given.

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