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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying exactly what content is read (current intent version and locked setup plan), which goes beyond the generic annotation hints and clarifies the tool's role as a preview step.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no redundant information. It is perfectly scoped for the tool's purpose.

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 simple read-only preview tool with 2 parameters and strong annotations, the description is adequate. It captures the workflow position and core function, though it does not describe the return format—but this is acceptable given the lack of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the tool.

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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters beyond the schema, which already clearly describes them as setup-session ID and secret token.

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 action ('Read') and specific resources ('current intent version and locked setup plan'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like apply, start, or get status. It also adds workflow context ('before asking a human to continue'), which clarifies its role in the setup process.

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 phrase 'before asking a human to continue' provides an explicit trigger for when to use this tool, giving clear usage context. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a full when/when-not comparison.

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