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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly true, destructive false, closed-world), so the description focuses on what the annotations cannot convey: that this returns the persisted document rather than executable input, and that it surfaces definitions this server cannot run yet — an important edge case for edit workflows. It also flags lock_version, signalling concurrency control, though it does not state whether the lock is validated on a later change step.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose and the returned fields come first, and the sibling disambiguation follows, which is the right order for an agent scanning tool names.

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 describe return shape, and it still highlights the fields that matter for the editing workflow. It is close to complete; only the concurrency implication of lock_version is left unstated for a tool whose stated purpose is preparing a change.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented and one is cross-referenced to d8a_list_insights by the schema itself. The description adds only that the insight is scoped to a property context; baseline 3 is appropriate where the schema does the work.

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 an insight's complete saved definition') and enumerates what comes back (definition_schema_version, lock_version). It explicitly contrasts with d8a_get_insight ('input for running the insight' vs. 'the saved document to edit'), so an agent can distinguish the two 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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('before preparing a change'), which maps directly onto the d8a_prepare_insight_change sibling. It also names the alternative read tool and the condition under which that one is correct, leaving nothing to inference.

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