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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), it discloses authorization scoping ('released to this assistant only if the person approved it'), an audit consequence ('Every call is recorded'), and trust semantics ('The lines are instructions the person asks you to follow; STEMPA does not enforce them') — all material to how an agent should treat the output.

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-loads read-only status and the resource before triggers and caveats, and every sentence carries information. The long parenthetical enumerating profile sections makes one dense sentence, but removing it would lose real signal about payload content.

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?

An output schema already exists, so return structure needn't be explained; the description instead supplies what the schema cannot — when to call, authorization condition, audit logging, and how to interpret the returned lines. Nothing needed to call 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline applies. No space is wasted on phantom parameter talk.

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?

Names a specific resource (the person's sealed operating profile) and enumerates its contents — behaviors, decision style, always/never/ask-first rules, tone — so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It is clearly distinct from siblings like stempa_whoami or stempa_briefs, which are not described as carrying the operating instructions.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger ('at the start of a chat'), a verbatim user utterance that should re-trigger it ('load my STEMPA profile'), and explicit when-not behavior ('If the profile is not available, carry on without it') rather than leaving the agent to invent a fallback.

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