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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description focuses on behavior the annotations can't convey: the layered return shape, the missing[] diagnostic list, the is_fresh_agent=true signal for brand-new agents, and the account-level warning when agent_id is omitted. It does not mention rate limits or auth requirements, but the added context is substantial.

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 core purpose and return shape, then a second paragraph for the optional profile mode. Two paragraphs for four parameters is proportionate, though the second paragraph is dense and could be trimmed slightly.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return, and it does: layer-by-layer found status, missing[], is_fresh_agent, and the account-level warning. Behavior across the optional profile path is also covered. Minor gap: it doesn't say how vars substitutions interact with the reported status.

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 structured fields already document vars, scope, profile, and agent_id thoroughly. The description still adds value by explaining the consequence of profile (REQUIRE keys fold into missing[]) and framing the whole call as a verification step, going beyond a restatement of the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: reporting which context layers (embryo, conventions, identity, closing note, opening note) loaded at session start, plus a missing[] list. This is clearly distinguishable from load_context/resume_session, which perform the bootstrap rather than verify it.

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?

Explicitly says when to call it: 'after load_context() or resume_session() to verify your bootstrap was complete and diagnose what to fetch manually.' It also names the condition for the optional profile mode (validating REQUIRE keys for a given recipe), so the agent knows both the trigger and the alternative modes.

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