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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that: the result is scoped to data visible to the linked Market Brew account, which signals an authorization boundary. It does not describe return shape or the meaning of session state, so it stays at a modest 3.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger and followed by the scoping caveat. Nothing is padded, though the first sentence is wasted effort since it merely echoes the title.

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, a nested object parameter, and an undocumented required ID, yet the description explains none of what a 'session state' payload contains or how searchWidgetId is obtained. For a tool with this much structural complexity, the description leaves significant gaps.

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 only 50%: the nested 'query' object is documented (websiteHost), but the required searchWidgetId has no description at all. The description adds no parameter meaning to compensate, leaving the required identifier's format and source unexplained. With low coverage the description should carry more of this burden and does not.

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 is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title: 'get Search Widget session state' tells the agent nothing beyond what the name already conveys. It does name a resource (session state), but there is no differentiation from siblings like get_search_widget_history or list_search_widget_history, which an agent would plausibly confuse with this tool.

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?

'Use this when the user asks to get Search Widget session state' is circular guidance that restates the purpose rather than explaining when to select this tool over alternatives. No exclusions, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closely named history tools that an agent could pick instead.

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