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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description goes beyond that by disclosing the underlying filter semantics (`valid_to IS NULL`), the time-machine cutoff behavior, and the parameter precedence rule. It stops short of describing result shape or pagination behavior across the 200-row ceiling.

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?

Front-loaded with the core semantic concept and default behavior, then a compact Args block. The structure is easy to scan; only the api_key line is filler since authentication is implied by invocation.

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 seven-parameter tool with no output schema, the definition explains input semantics well but never states what a fact record contains (subject/predicate/object, valid_from/valid_to) or how bi-temporal rows are ordered when limit truncates them. An agent can call it correctly but cannot predict the response shape.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and does document all seven parameters, adding real meaning: format for as_of (ISO-8601 timestamptz), the numeric bound for limit (1-200), and the auto-resolution behavior for memory_id. A few entries are near-tautological (subject_id, predicate restate their names), but the coverage gap is largely closed.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: "Read bi-temporal facts from the knowledge graph," and clarifies the two modes (active facts vs. point-in-time rewind). It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with nearby siblings like awareness_lookup, awareness_related or awareness_timeline, so an agent must infer that this is the raw fact-layer read while those are entity/relationship views.

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 default behavior and the as_of alternative are described clearly, which implies when each mode applies, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' routing against the many overlapping awareness_* siblings. Interaction guidance (active_only is ignored when as_of is set) is a useful usage rule that partially compensates.

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