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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it describes the read model structure, the operational fields included, and that full snapshot payloads are excluded to keep responses small. This goes beyond the annotations and is consistent with them.

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 sentences: the first delivers the core purpose and contents, the second explains the lazy-loading design and rationale. Every sentence adds value, no filler, and it's front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

Given the tool has a read model with no output schema, the description adequately covers what's included, what's excluded, and how to access the full payload. It could provide more detail on response formatting, but the essential usage context is present.

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 already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both parameters (process_id and captures). The description adds some context about captures being part of the read model, but doesn't introduce new meaning beyond what the schema offers, so it stays at the baseline.

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 gets the 'v2 read model for a clarity process', enumerating specific components (process row with operational fields, captures, lightweight version arrays). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'v2', 'lightweight', and the deliberate exclusion of full snapshot payloads, differentiating it from getClarityProcessSnapshot and getLegacyClarityProcess.

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 explicitly explains that full snapshot payloads are fetched lazily via a separate unified per-snapshot detail endpoint, implying when to use this read model versus when to fetch snapshot details. It provides clear context for appropriate usage, though it doesn't name the alternative sibling tool directly.

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