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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: its role as the pipeline's data-reader source and that it does not depend on editor state, plus the output wiring behavior. It stops short of noting limits around the _files/_subject handling.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action (read a chosen document as a record) followed by the differentiator and the wiring instruction. Slightly jargon-heavy ('pipeline's data-reader source') but every sentence carries weight.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers purpose, the editor-vs-file distinction, and downstream wiring, which is sufficient for a 3-parameter tool with a complex nested schema.

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%, so the schema already documents `document`, `_subject`, and `_files` in detail. The description adds only the general framing of reading a chosen document and does not elaborate on parameter formats beyond 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 (read) and resource (a CHOSEN project document as a record) and clarifies it targets a named file rather than the editor's open document, which differentiates it from get_open_record. It does not explicitly contrast with other read siblings like fetch_record or search_records, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use context: run on a specific file 'instead of whatever happens to be open in the editor,' and tells the agent to wire the record into a downstream node's $subject. It names an implicit alternative (the open document) but offers no explicit when-not or naming of fetch_record/search_records.

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