Read Meta-Model

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior on top: models are computed nightly on the hosted service, not on request, so reads can be stale. It also discloses the two return signals an agent must handle — status "not_computed" for an uncomputed scope and "computed_at" for freshness — which prevents misinterpreting an empty/deferred result.

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, both earning their place: the first establishes what is read and how lens changes the output, the second front-loads the critical constraint (precomputed, possibly absent). No filler or restatement of the title.

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 no output schema, the description does the right work by naming the status and freshness fields and by distinguishing the three lens result types. It stops short of describing the shape of a model payload per lens, but for a read-only tool with full schema coverage this is close to sufficient.

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% and both enums are documented, so the schema already carries the mechanics; the description adds meaning by mapping each lens to what it actually returns (methodology patterns, resiliency metrics, process flows). It does not clarify what id is required for, but the schema handles that.

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 the stored meta-model") and enumerates the three scopes and three lenses, so the resource is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling kg_query, which an agent might reasonably reach for instead.

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 usage through the scope/lens enumeration and warns that models are precomputed rather than on-request, which effectively tells the agent not to expect a fresh recompute. However it never states when to prefer this over kg_query or kg_status, nor any prerequisites for the id field per scope.

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