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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true/mutating=false, so safety is covered, yet the description adds real context: immutability of the history, canonicality ('reads current server state and does not manufacture company facts'), and idempotency ('safe to repeat'). The confirmation-boundary sentence is largely boilerplate enumerating unrelated operations, but the idempotency and immutability claims are genuine value beyond 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 useful content is correctly front-loaded in the first sentence, but the remainder is padded with labeled boilerplate ('Canonicality:', 'Idempotency:', 'Confirmation boundary:') and a dangling 'every prerequisite stated above' clause. Several sentences do not earn their place, though none are actively misleading.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description usefully sketches what is returned and states an access prerequisite. However, it omits any explanation of the required formationId, and the boilerplate cross-reference leaves the prerequisite chain undefined, so an agent still lacks pieces needed to call it confidently.

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% across 2 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not: formationId (a UUID with a specific pattern) and the nested _corply_context object are never mentioned. 'This company's' only loosely implies company scoping, leaving the agent to infer the identifier's role and format entirely from the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb ('Read') and enumerates the exact resources returned: immutable version history, open founder change proposals, recorded decisions, and editing authority. This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like propose_formation_change and decide_formation_change without needing to name them.

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 only usage statement is 'Prerequisite: authenticated active company access plus every prerequisite stated above' — a vacuous cross-reference to text that does not exist in this description. There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as get_current_charter or get_company_briefing, and no exclusions.

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