Try one read tool

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

Annotations mark readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds substantial beyond that: it describes what is shown (URL, query, body, non-secret headers, raw response structure summary + truncated text, mapped result or error), discloses the Accept: application/json header behavior, and reassures 'Never calls write tools.' This is rich context not present in annotations.

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 purpose then workflow guidance and a diagnostic tip. Slightly dense but every clause earns its place; no filler.

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 diagnostic read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, headers, and workflow placement well. It falls short only on parameter meaning (how to specify which tool and argument payload), which is the one gap an agent needs filled.

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 0% and all five parameters (category, id, verb, arguments, max_chars) lack any documentation in either the schema or the description. The description never mentions which parameters select the tool or how arguments/max_chars behave, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (call ONE read tool of a saved entry through the runtime) and resource (a saved entry's read tool), and explicitly distinguishes scope with 'Never calls write tools.' An agent can differentiate this from siblings like live_verify and test_server.

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?

Names the explicit workflow position: 'Use it to fix result paths before live_verify.' It also gives a concrete diagnostic heuristic (an empty list usually means result.items is wrong or the platform changed format). When-to-use and the alternative (live_verify) are both stated.

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