at

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it discloses the full-vs-excerpt behavioral distinction, time-travel semantics, and that a node retracted since the target moment is still reachable (reinforced in the schema). It implies a safe read via 'Read' but never explicitly confirms read-only/non-destructive status, leaving a small gap.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the defining distinction (full content) before the alternative-selection rule and the optional parameter. Every clause earns its place; no filler.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description usefully explains what is returned and the time-travel behavior. The notable omission is the purpose of the `initiative` parameter, which is left entirely unexplained.

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 67% — `name` and `when` are documented in the schema, including the same time formats the description restates. The description adds little beyond the schema for those two, and the third parameter, `initiative`, is undocumented in both places, so the description cannot fully compensate.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and scope — 'Read a node IN FULL — every field plus the complete, untruncated body' — leaving no ambiguity about what the tool returns. It explicitly contrasts itself with siblings ('drill / search / recall only show short excerpts'), so an agent can route without opening a 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?

It names the alternatives (drill, search, recall) and the exact selecting condition ('when you need a node's whole content'), and explains the selective use of the optional `when` parameter. The when-to-use decision is fully spelled out.

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