handoff_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does real work: it discloses graceful degradation ('stale' note when the shared repository can't be reached) and an explicit untrusted-content safety stance about the other agent's reply. Missing only error/not-found behavior and any permission requirements.

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?

Front-loaded with the read purpose and return fields before the safety caveat; both sentences earn their place. The second sentence is long but the untrusted-content warning justifies the length.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating return fields including the conditional 'stale' state; with no annotations it also supplies the security posture. Only failure modes (invalid or missing id) are left uncovered.

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 coverage is 0% for the single 'id' parameter, so the description should compensate; it only implies that the id selects the desk item, without stating the identifier space or that it must be a positive integer. Baseline 3 given one parameter whose role is at least contextually implied.

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?

Specific verb ('Read') plus a precisely scoped resource ('one desk item') and an enumeration of what comes back: request, reply, status, timestamps. An agent can distinguish this single-item read from the list-shaped siblings (handoff_list, handoff_inbox) without opening any schema.

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 'one item by id' framing implies the calling condition, but the description never states when to prefer this over handoff_list or handoff_inbox, nor what to do if the id is unknown. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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