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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the key behavioral detail that the returned profile is scoped to the `lang` parameter, defaulting to the user's primary learning language. It also explains the returned content, which goes beyond the annotation. Lacks info on edge cases like invalid lang or repeated calls, but is otherwise clear.

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 long sentences, but every clause carries necessary instruction: when to call, what it returns, how to pass `lang`, and when to re-call. It is front-loaded with the most critical directive. Slightly dense but not wasteful.

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?

Without an output schema, the description must convey what the tool returns, and it does: CEFR level, target/source languages, due-card count, weak words, and capture instructions. It also explains why this matters (tailoring help to the user's level and goals). For a single-parameter tool with clear return content, this is complete.

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 covers `lang` fully (ISO/BCP-47 tag, optional, default). The description adds contextual guidance: pass the language the user is 'conversing in' or 'named explicitly', and includes regional variant examples (en-us, en-gb). This extra meaning enriches the schema's baseline.

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 tool's purpose: 'load the user's Minddory setup and your role as their proactive language partner' at the start of every conversation. It lists specific content (CEFR level, languages, due-card count, weak words) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_user_profile or get_queue by being the session initializer.

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?

Provides explicit usage instructions: 'Call this at the START of every new conversation, before your first reply' and when to pass `lang` (when the user is conversing in a language or names one). It also tells when to re-call ('if the user switches practice language or requests a specific variant mid-conversation').

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