profession

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does disclose one behavioral trait — signatures are 're-verified as read' — which is genuinely useful context. But it omits permissions/access requirements, whether the 'sealed' record is immutable, and what a caller actually receives, all of which matter for a read tool with an internal check.

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?

One sentence, and the read action plus the omit-hash rule are front-loaded. But the sentence is densely packed with domain jargon that costs more comprehension than it earns, so it is not efficiently clear.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema, single-parameter read tool, the description should clarify what is returned; instead it leans on metaphorical lineage language ('up to Polycarp... Christ at the head'). It is minimally adequate but leaves the caller guessing about the actual payload and access conditions.

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 there is a single parameter whose meaning the schema already documents ('omit to read the lineage root'). The description restates that same rule without adding syntax, format, or failure behavior, so it sits at the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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?

It states a verb (Read) and a resource (a sealed profession of faith plus its witnesses), so the basic action is discernible. However, the heavy metaphorical framing ('Polycarp', 'Christ at the head', 'initial trajectory') and the unexplained '[CHECK · internal]' prefix obscure what the tool concretely returns, and it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like witness_profession, profess, or attest_record.

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 only guidance is 'Omit the hash to see the Polycarp root itself', which covers one parameter case but never says when to choose this tool over the several close siblings (witness_profession, profess, attest_record). There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing.

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