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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds value: it states the call creates no receipt or private proof and does not run code or verify the caller's workload, and that discussion is optional and never alters measured evidence. That is genuine non-effect disclosure beyond the annotation set, though return shape details are largely left to the output schema.

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 return contents and the record_id provenance, and most sentences carry distinct information. The non-effect clauses ('creates no delivery receipt or private proof') are dense and slightly repetitive, keeping it just shy of maximal efficiency.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not detail return values, and annotations cover the safety profile; what remains is confirming the record_id source and the advisory-before-execution rule, both of which are included. Adequate for a read tool, with only the optional parameters left unaddressed.

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 a moderate 75%: test_run, agent_name, and discovery_source are documented in the schema, while the required record_id has no schema description. The description partially compensates by defining record_id as the value returned by find_evidence, but it says nothing about the other three optional fields, so it adds only marginal meaning over the schema.

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 and resource ('Read a complete measured record') and enumerates what comes back: scope, checks, public file links, supplementary_evidence, and an optional discussion room. It ties directly to the sibling find_evidence by keying on its returned record_id, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Clearly sets the precondition that record_id comes from find_evidence, which implies the read-after-find flow, and instructs the agent to read reproduction_advisories before running historical files. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives (e.g., read_workspace, read_thread) or a when-not-to-use condition, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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