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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it should be called once per conversation, the server automatically tracks the sources, searches, and notes read, and the tool does not create or configure anything. It stops short of describing return shape or empty-state behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first clause gives the primary instruction (call once per conversation before searching or saving), then the exclusion, then the return contents. Every clause carries operational value and there is 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 zero-parameter, read-only orientation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, exclusion, and the categories of information returned. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to compensate for. The description correctly focuses on invocation timing and returned context instead of restating a nonexistent 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?

The description uses a specific verb-resource framing: it tells the agent to retrieve the user's current context and enumerates exactly what that includes—where they left off, pending items, latest sources, searches, notes read, note count, and available skills. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_onboarding_status, so an agent can separate the two siblings without opening their schemas.

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?

It gives explicit timing and ordering: call once per conversation, before searching or saving in the user's brain. It also states the negative case—this is not for creating or configuring the brain—and names get_onboarding_status as the correct alternative for that need.

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