ov_read

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.