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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful context beyond that: it reads stored evidence only, performs no provider request, and supports pagination with offset and limit. This adds behavioral details not captured by the annotation alone, though it could still note edge cases like empty results.

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 concise sentences, front-loading the main purpose and then noting the read-only nature and pagination. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should explain return values; it lists what the evidence contains (read dates, incomplete states, excerpts, limitations) but not the structure or format. It also leaves the 'chars' parameter unexplained. Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description is only partially complete.

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 mentions 'offset and limit' in the context of pagination, but does not explain the 'chars' parameter at all, nor does it give semantics for offset/limit beyond the schema's own constraints. This is insufficient for a tool with zero schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Reads'), a clear resource ('stored evidence' comparing initial HTML and rendered JSON-LD), and details what the evidence contains (read dates, incomplete states, excerpts, limitations). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it reads stored evidence only, making its purpose 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 clarifies that it reads stored evidence and makes no provider request, which is a usage constraint. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any conditions or exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit routing to or away from sibling tools.

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