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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that results come with pre-generated L0/L1 summaries, but says nothing about response volume, how deep/broad output scales, or what L0 vs L1 means.

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, zero redundancy: the capability comes first, then the usage guidance. Nothing is padded or restated from the schema.

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 two-optional-parameter read-only survey tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The one gap is the undefined L0/L1 jargon, which is the tool's main value proposition and would help an agent judge whether the summaries suffice before calling ov_read.

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 description coverage is 100% with clear docs for uri (defaults to resources root) and depth (1-4 levels), so the description needs to add little. It adds nothing beyond the schema and leaves the unexplained L0/L1 notation as the only domain-specific concept, which is not tied to any parameter.

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 ("Inspect OpenViking directory structure") plus the distinguishing output trait ("generated summaries (L0/L1)"). It separates itself from ov_search and ov_read by framing itself as the survey step before those actions, though it never names the siblings directly.

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?

"Use it to survey what knowledge exists before deciding what to search or read" gives a clear situational trigger and implicitly positions ov_search/ov_read as the follow-on alternatives. It stops short of explicit when-not conditions or naming the siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope details, namely full L2 content for a single document, but does not describe error behavior, authorization needs, rate limits, or return format.

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 definition is two tight sentences with no wasted language. The core operation is front-loaded, and the second sentence supplies usage context efficiently.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with complete schema coverage and rich safety annotations, the description supplies enough context: what is returned, at what granularity, and when to call it. Minor gaps around error behavior and exact return format remain, but they are not critical here.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains that uri is a viking:// URI returned by ov_search. The description reinforces that access is by URI but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: read the full text of one OpenViking document by URI, and it scopes the content as L2. It differentiates the tool from ov_search by positioning it as the next step after a search hit, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from ov_overview.

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 gives clear usage guidance: call this after ov_search when a hit looks relevant and the complete section is needed. It does not specify when not to use it or how it compares to ov_overview as an alternative.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the matching is semantic ('by meaning') rather than keyword, and it discloses the shape of results. It omits anything about result-set behavior when nothing matches, which is a minor 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 sentences, front-loaded with capability, then return shape, then the usage rule. No sentence is redundant or restates the tool name.

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 usefully compensates by naming the three returned fields. Four parameters and no nested objects makes this a simple tool, and the only thing an agent might still want — what happens on zero matches — is minor.

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 description coverage is 100%, so query, limit, target_uri and score_threshold are all documented in the schema itself, including the subtree URI example. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond the vocabulary overlap of 'URI' and 'relevance score' in the return statement, so baseline 3 applies.

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 — semantic search over the OpenViking knowledge base — plus the return shape (URI, relevance score, summary). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings ov_read and ov_overview, though the names plus 'search by meaning' make the distinction reasonably inferable.

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?

'Use it before writing SQL, DDL or node changes to check for existing standards and known pitfalls' gives a concrete triggering context, which is stronger than most. It stops short of explicit when-not conditions or naming ov_read/ov_overview as the alternatives for retrieval once a URI is known.

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