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

The description goes well beyond the annotations: it states the read is passive, changes nothing, wakes no timer, records nothing, and that refusals count toward repeated-refusal notice. It also discloses that walk-to-read is not privacy, that returned text is untrusted data, and that founder resident #1 with root key may read any body. This is rich behavioral context beyond readOnlyHint/idempotentHint.

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 long but information-dense, covering usage, exclusions, security, and alternatives. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds necessary caveats. Some redundancy exists (e.g., the URL alternatives could be trimmed), but every sentence adds meaningful context for an agent navigating a complex world.

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 tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, what it refuses, what it returns, security caveats, and alternatives. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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?

The schema has only one parameter, note_id, with 0% description coverage. The description doesn't explicitly explain note_id, but the tool name and description make it obvious that note_id identifies the walk-to-read note. With a single obvious parameter, the description doesn't need to add much; the baseline for 0 params is 4, and here the one param is self-evident.

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 clearly states the tool reads the whole body of one walk-to-read note while standing in its place, distinguishing it from ordinary note reads and from the look tool for lines. It names the resource (walk-to-read note) and the specific verb (read whole body), and differentiates from siblings like look and front_door.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool: to read a walk-to-read note in person, and when not: lines should be read with look view=lines, and other notes return whole regardless of place. It also mentions the refusal behavior with place_id, which guides the agent on what to do if the note is elsewhere.

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