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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it returns only the stored interview for this brand and performs no restart/side effect, which tells the agent the call is safe to repeat without mutating state.

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 short sentences with the payload front-loaded. The final sentence partially restates the first but earns its place by adding the no-restart and brand-scoping constraints.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (messages, profile, phase, applied), and annotations carry the safety profile. An agent has enough to call this correctly without opening the schema.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains includeHistory directly ('true includes previous archived sessions'), and brandId is made self-evident by 'for this brand'. One of two weak-typed params is fully clarified; brandId's meaning is implied rather than explicit.

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 ('Read') and resource ('strategy interview') and enumerates the payload (messages, profile, phase, applied). This distinguishes it from the mutating sibling 'strategy_interview' via 'without restarting it', though the sibling is not named explicitly.

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 phrase 'without restarting it' and the includeHistory note imply when to reach for this rather than a starting tool, but no alternative is named and there are no explicit when/when-not conditions. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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