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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that no data is stored, that the package is returned intact, and that learner_decisions are honored. It also explicitly states it is never a grade or credit decision, adding behavioral context beyond 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 three sentences, each contributing distinct value: content definition, purpose/non-grading, and persistence/honoring decisions. It is front-loaded with the core function and avoids redundancy.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover read-only, the description covers purpose, behavior, storage, and decision honoring. It omits explicit parameter details for language, but that is a minor gap given the schema and optionality. Overall, it is complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 67%, with package and aspiration described in the schema. The description reinforces the role of the package (kept and returned) but adds no new parameter semantics. The language parameter lacks a schema description and the tool description does not compensate, leaving it ambiguous. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: it shows the person's Selfie from their evidence package, enumerating the seven dimensions and their sources. It also clarifies it is a mirror for confirmation, not a grade or credit decision, distinguishing it from any decision-making tool.

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 description provides clear context: it is for the person to confirm, refine, or reject their Selfie, implying a review use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, though its unique role among siblings makes this less critical.

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