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

readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false already establish this as a safe, non-mutating read, so the description's burden is lighter. Beyond that the description adds no behavioral context — not whether a missing/unlisted name errors or returns empty, nor whether the full file body is returned.

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?

One short clause with the verb and resource front-loaded and the allowed values parenthesized inline. Zero preamble and zero redundancy.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering its safety profile, this is nearly sufficient — the agent knows what it reads and from which fixed set of names. The only remaining gap is what comes back (raw file text vs. parsed sections), which the lack of an output schema leaves unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the single `name` parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the valid values. The description merely repeats that same value list, adding no format, case-sensitivity, or default information beyond structured data.

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?

Specific verb ('Read') plus a clearly scoped resource ('adapter instruction file') with concrete file examples (AGENTS, CLAUDE, replit) that delimit the domain. It does not, however, distinguish itself from plausible siblings like tide_playbook, tide_canon, or tide_prompt, so an agent must infer the boundary from the file-name list alone.

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?

Usage is only implicit: the enumerated file names imply 'call this to retrieve adapter instructions.' There is no statement of when this tool is preferable to tide_playbook/tide_canon/tide_prompt, no ordering or prerequisite guidance, and no note about what happens if the adapter file is absent.

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