read

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral details about error handling ('Errors with a clear message if the topic does not exist') and expiry behavior ('Expired topics are still readable by id'), going beyond what annotations provide.

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 consists of three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence contributes useful information (purpose, error handling, expiry behavior) without unnecessary verbosity.

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 read operation with one parameter, readOnlyHint, and an output schema, the description covers essential behavioral aspects (error, expiry) and prerequisites. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when and how to call the tool.

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 the parameter 'topic_id' is fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal parameter semantics (only the prerequisite to call discover_topics first), which is a slight enhancement but does not significantly exceed the schema baseline.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Read a single topic in full, including its YAML frontmatter.' It specifies both the resource (topic) and the scope (single, full, including frontmatter), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like discover_topics (listing) and write/edit (mutations).

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 provides contextual guidance: 'call discover_topics first' indicates a prerequisite for obtaining valid topic IDs, and 'Expired topics are still readable by id' clarifies behavior for edge cases. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the guidance is clear.

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