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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description builds on that by explaining the INFER behavior ('do not ask'), the default filter, and what fields are returned. This adds useful operational context beyond the annotations.

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: purpose first, use cases second, then a clearly marked INFER block with parameter guidance, and finally a one-line return convention. Every sentence carries information.

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 single-parameter, read-only list tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers usage, filter semantics, inference behavior, and return fields. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaning not present in the schema: 'use 'all' for history; use 'historical' for ended strategies only.' This disambiguates the enum values and gives the agent a rule for inferring the parameter without asking.

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?

Description begins with a specific verb and resource: 'List the user's recovery and mindfulness strategies.' It also gives concrete use cases ('user asks about recovery practices, mindfulness routines, or you need strategy IDs before logging a session'), which distinguishes it from related siblings like manage_recovery_strategy or list_recovery_sessions.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: when the user asks about recovery practices, mindfulness routines, or needs strategy IDs before logging a session. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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