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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that schemas live in a registry and confirms this is a pure read, but it does not say what happens when the name is unknown (error vs empty) or whether a list of valid schema names is discoverable — meaningful gaps for an open-world lookup.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the example is appended where it is most useful.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is close to adequate, but it omits the return shape (what a 'record schema' contains) and any error/lookup semantics for an invalid name.

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% for the single 'name' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does so partially by giving the concrete example 'family-event', which conveys the naming convention, but it does not state whether the name is case-sensitive, namespaced, or how to discover valid values.

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 pairs the specific verb 'Read' with the specific resource 'record schema' and situates it in the registry (schemas that recipes are written for). That distinguishes it reasonably well from get_recipe, though it does not explicitly name or contrast the sibling.

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?

Usage is only implied: the clause 'the registry's recipes are written for' hints that you fetch a schema when authoring or interpreting a recipe, but the description never states when to call it, when not to, or which sibling to use instead (e.g., search_records vs get_recipe).

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