read

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses what is returned by default and that named graph views can be expanded. It does not mention pagination, budget behavior, or error conditions, but the output schema and annotation reduce the burden.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, stating default behavior before optional expansion. Every clause 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 complex tool with 8 parameters, conditional schema constraints, and missing parameter descriptions, this one-sentence description is not sufficient. The output schema covers return values, but the input semantics and usage context remain largely undocumented.

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?

With 8 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description only hints at 'record' (node) and 'named graph views' (likely include). It leaves initiative, cursor, to, edge_types, recorded_at, and budget_chars entirely unexplained.

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 gives a concrete verb-resource pair ('Read a record') and specifies the default payload (currentness, material doubts, saved reasoning summary) plus optional expansion of named graph views. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as search or context, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies default usage and conditional expansion ('when needed'), but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus search/context alternatives. Usage is only implied rather than clearly stated.

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