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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses that it returns the customer's personal information (a privacy constraint on how the result may be handled) and that unverified, expired and revoked sessions are refused. It doesn't cover rate limits or what happens with a malformed token, but this is well beyond the annotation baseline.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the privacy constraint and the refusal conditions. No filler; each sentence carries distinct 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary. For a single-param read tool with full annotations, the description covers purpose, privacy handling and failure modes well. The only gap is how a session token is acquired or how sessions relate to applications, which would help an agent recover from a refusal.

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?

Only one parameter (sessionToken) and schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema says nothing about what a session token is or where it comes from. The description implies the token belongs to an email-verified session but doesn't explain its provenance, lifetime, or how to obtain it. It partially compensates but the gap remains.

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 (email-verified request session, its customer-editable fields and current version). The title and description align. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the mutation siblings like applications.update or applications.get_status, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Implicit guidance: use this to read draft/session state, and the refusal conditions (unverified, expired, revoked) tell the agent when the call will fail. But it never names alternatives such as applications.get_status or applications.update, leaving the agent to infer the boundary itself.

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