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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — omitting revision silently returns the latest saved revision — but says nothing about failure modes for unknown or draft-only profileIds.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste: the purpose and the read-before-edit cue come first, then the parameter default behavior. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 two-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers the call mechanics but not the result — the agent has no idea what a 'controller' document contains or how to interpret it, which matters given the sibling profile_schema exists for that purpose.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it explains revision fully (omit for latest, otherwise a specific revision number). It adds nothing about profileId beyond the pattern constraint, leaving the most important identifier undocumented in both places.

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?

"Read a controller" gives a verb and a resource, but the resource is called a 'controller' while the tool and its sibling list_profiles talk about 'profiles', so the agent has to bridge that naming gap. It doesn't state that a full profile document is returned or how this differs from list_profiles, leaving differentiation implicit.

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?

"Read a controller before editing" implies a read-before-write workflow, which is useful context for when to call it. However, there is no explicit alternative named (e.g., list_profiles to discover profileId, or profile_schema to understand the document) and no statement of when this tool should not be used.

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