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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating safety. The description adds detail about what is read (lifecycle, visibility, URLs) but does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication needs, which are expected for a read operation.

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 that conveys the main purpose without fluff. However, it could be better structured by listing parameters or providing more details.

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 tool with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to use the parameters or what the response contains, leaving the agent to guess.

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%; the description does not explain the 'url' or 'mark_id' parameters. The agent must infer that these identify the record mark, but no explicit meaning or usage hints are provided.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Read' and the resource 'signed Record Mark status, lifecycle, visibility and public URLs', providing clear purpose and distinguishing it from siblings like 'usage_mark_issue' and 'usage_mark_status_set'.

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 the tool is used for reading record mark status, but it does not provide explicit when or when-not to use it compared to alternatives like 'usage_mark_verify' or 'usage_mark_visibility_scan'.

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