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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the files are 'signed and authoritative,' which is useful behavioral context, but does not state permissions, side effects, error behavior for unknown filenames, or anything about output format.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the file list is compact. No wasted phrasing.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the core purpose. But with no annotations and no output schema, it could say more about what 'signed and authoritative' implies for the caller or what happens on invalid input.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the single `file` parameter with an example. The description restates the valid file list, which adds marginal enumeration value, but baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (canon file), and enumerates the exact set of authoritative files, so the agent knows precisely what this returns. It is clearly distinct from siblings like read_room, which reads room content rather than canon.

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 implies usage (when you need authoritative rules), but does not explicitly state when to call this versus alternatives such as read_room or get_status, nor any prerequisites. The context is implied rather than spelled out.

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