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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real context: the operation is gated on the key's history:read scope, requires no wallet selector or signing, and requires storage admission. It does not explain what happens on a missing scope or failed admission, but the preconditions are unusually well disclosed.

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?

Four short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the constraints following. It is dense but nearly every clause carries information; the only weak spot is jargon like "Storage admission" and "current-store" that is never unpacked.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description bears the burden of describing the return value, and it does not — an agent cannot tell whether it gets a run object, privacy flags, or metadata. The precondition language is strong, but the missing return description and the unexplained "current-store" concept leave a real gap for a tool with no output contract.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains that id is an existing current-store run ID owned by the authenticated key's wallet. The description reinforces ownership ("Owner-private") but adds no format, lookup or failure semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Owner-private current-store read" gives a verb and a scope (current store, owner-only), and "No wallet selector or signing" separates it from the interactive flow. But it never states what is actually read or returned — the run record, its privacy settings, its visibility? The title's "Read your question privacy" only adds ambiguity, so an agent cannot cleanly distinguish this from siblings like history_owned_read or run_owner_export.

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?

It clearly frames the context (verified key with explicit history:read scope, no signing) and states an exclusion: visibility, defaults and erasure need the interactive web session, not this tool. It also names a prerequisite ("Storage admission is required"). It stops short of naming which sibling tool to use for related reads, but the when/when-not framing is solid.

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