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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuine beyond-annotation behavior: local $refs resolve against the same root document, large nodes return explicit child pointers rather than flooding context, and that schemas are not private runtime source.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the primary read action and following with constraining caveats. No wasted filler, though the density leans jargon-heavy.

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 and 0% schema coverage, the description does well on ref resolution and large-node behavior, but leaves the required 'id' parameter and the return shape unexplained. Adequate but with a clear gap for a tool whose selection hinges on that enum.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'pointer' as an RFC 6901 node and 'sha256' as an optional root hash, but the required 27-value 'id' enum — the most important parameter — receives no explanation at all.

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 (Read) and resource (canonical structural input JSON Schema), plus the exact-node variant via RFC 6901 pointer. It is distinguishable from siblings like firedrill_validate_recipe and firedrill_preview, though it doesn't name them directly.

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?

Explicitly signals when this tool isn't enough: 'Cross-field rules require canonical preview/validation' and 'discovery does not grant authority or prove execution,' pointing to preview/validation and discovery alternatives. Clear context, though it stops short of naming exact sibling tools.

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