fact_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does add useful context about body escaping and retired-fact fields, which is beyond the bare 'read' meaning. However, it omits behavior for missing facts, errors, authorization requirements, or response shape.

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, with the core action front-loaded and no wasted words. The behavioral note about escaping and retired facts 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 simple single-fact read tool, the description covers key lookup semantics and a special retired-fact case. But with no output schema and no annotation, it does not describe what happens when the uid is invalid or the result is empty, and it fails to mention when to choose fact_search instead.

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 50%: agent is documented but uid is not. The description adds some meaning by indicating the uid identifies the fact to read, but it does not elaborate on uid format or the agent parameter beyond what the schema already says.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Read one fact by uid.' It identifies the exact lookup method (by uid), which distinguishes it from fact_search, though it does not explicitly name siblings or contrast them.

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 the tool is used when you have a fact's uid, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer fact_search or the other siblings. It does not state alternatives or exclusions, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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