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

Annotations already declare readOnly/ idempotent / non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful non-obvious context: the operation only applies to LIVE sessions, the payload contains secrets (login cookies), and it should not be echoed to users or logs. That secret-handling warning is exactly the kind of behavioral caveat annotations cannot express.

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 clone use case and the secret-handling caveat. No filler, every 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?

There is no output schema, so the description reasonably describes the return payload (context object, fingerprint, domain scores) and how to reuse it. It lacks any note on behavior for non-live/expired sessions or error handling, but for this shallow, single-param read tool it is close to 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 coverage is 100% and the single session_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including where it comes from (create/list). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 for schema-covered params 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?

States a specific verb (Return) and resource (full stored state of a LIVE session), then enumerates contents — cookies, localStorage, credentials — plus fingerprint and domain scores. An agent can distinguish this from spicrawl_session_get/list, which the sibling names suggest provide metadata rather than full state.

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 gives one concrete use case — passing the returned session_context to spicrawl_session_create to clone a session — which implies when to reach for it. However, it never states when NOT to use it or how it differs from spicrawl_session_get, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from sibling names alone.

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