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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds important behavioral nuance: the tool may execute a live probe synchronously as part of the read, 'each entry can trigger at most one live probe, ever,' and it is unauthenticated and free. This goes well beyond the annotations and clarifies a non-obvious side effect.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and effective, clearly stating the action and key conditions. However, the later sentences about feedback submission, daily review, and absence of individual replies are unrelated to invoking this tool and dilute the description. The core behavioral content could be stated in two sentences.

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 without an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return contents (verdict and raw probe response) and the important live-probe trigger condition. It lacks detailed return structure but is adequate for correct invocation; the missing details are more relevant after the response is received.

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?

The single parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema as 'The entry id returned by deadman_register,' giving 100% coverage. The description reinforces that the id comes from deadman_register but does not add further semantic detail, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'read an entry back by id, including its verdict and the raw probe response.' It also explicitly ties the tool to deadman_register ('what you bought with deadman_register comes back over MCP'), which distinguishes its purpose from sibling read tools.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool, namely after deadman_register and to retrieve an entry's verdict. It also describes the special edge case where a live probe may run synchronously. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it.

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