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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting it 'Live-checks ownerOf' and explicitly stating 'grants no authority,' giving an agent a clearer picture of runtime behavior beyond the annotations.

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 tight sentences with no redundant phrasing. The main action and resource appear first in the first sentence, followed by a short behavioral note in the second; every clause earns its place.

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?

Given the simple single-parameter schema, strong annotations, and an existing output schema, this description provides sufficiently complete context. The phrase 'separated evidence' and 'owner epochs' are slightly domain-specific, but they are precise enough alongside the sibling and schema context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

There is one required tokenId parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already defining it as an NFH token id. The description does not need to re-explain the parameter, and it adds only implicit meaning by framing the token as the identifier for the public brain being read.

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 opens with 'Read' and names a specific resource—the NFH public brain—while enumerating its contents: transferable history, learning receipts, promoted skills, owner epochs, and separated evidence. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like get_agent_pfp or get_agent_entry, which target different resources.

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 implies a read-only public lookup use case and states that it 'grants no authority,' which helps clarify that it is not a state-changing action. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving usage routing mostly implicit.

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