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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one real behavioral fact beyond them: only *public* assessments are readable, which tells the agent private/unclaimed ones will not resolve. It does not say what happens on a missing or unauthorized scan id.

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 short sentences with the core action and the keying parameter front-loaded, followed by a documentation pointer. Nothing is padded, though the link sentence adds little to an agent that cannot follow it in-band.

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?

A single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, but there is no output schema and the description never characterizes what a 'saved assessment' contains or its shape. For a retrieval tool that is the main missing piece; everything else an agent needs to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and scanId has no description, so the description must carry the meaning; it does confirm scanId identifies a saved assessment scan. It still omits where the id comes from (e.g., returned by assess_launch) and its expected format, leaving the agent to guess.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Read a saved public LaunchBuddy assessment') plus the keying parameter ('by scan id'). It partially distinguishes itself from siblings like claim_assessment or assess_launch by making clear this is a retrieval of an already-saved artifact, not a new run.

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 only usage cue is the implied 'you must have a scan id', with no statement of when to prefer this over reassess_launch, claim_assessment, or verify_launch_audit. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative routing.

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