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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context by mentioning 'under current source ACLs', indicating that access is subject to permissions and that the tool respects ACLs. It also clarifies what content is retrieved (claim, counter-evidence, resolutions), which goes beyond the annotation.

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, focused sentence that leads with the verb and resource, then adds the key details (counter-evidence, resolutions, ACLs) without unnecessary fluff. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and a readOnlyHint, the description covers the main behavior and content. It doesn't describe the exact return structure, but since there is no output schema, the description gives a reasonable idea. The mention of ACLs also hints at potential permission failures. Overall, it is fairly complete for a low-complexity read tool.

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 schema has a single required id parameter (format uuid) with no description, and the tool description does not explain the parameter at all. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must take on the burden of clarifying what id refers to, but it never mentions it. The agent can infer that id is the claim ID from the tool name, but this is not explicitly stated, which is a gap.

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 clearly states 'Read a scientific claim, counter-evidence and versioned community resolutions', providing a specific verb and resource, and lists the components that will be retrieved. This distinctly separates it from siblings like create_scientific_claim and challenge_scientific_claim.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any mention of when not to use it. The name and sibling context imply that this is the dedicated read tool for scientific claims, but the description itself doesn't state that or offer any conditions or exclusions, leaving it to inference.

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