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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the multi-turn stateful design and the anti-sycophancy design trait ('grounded clarity to prevent recursive sycophancy'), which is genuinely useful. However, it never states whether sessions persist, whether invoking creates history records, or what the response contains — notable gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, then triggers, then a design note. The phrasing is dense with jargon ('dialogic sanctuary session', 'recursive sycophancy') but every sentence earns its place. Minor deduction for the slightly overwrought vocabulary, which could slow comprehension.

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?

The description fully covers when to invoke but leaves invocation mechanics underspecified: it does not explain how to continue a multi-turn session via session_id, what role volition_passport plays (though the schema references its issuing sibling), or what a response looks like — especially relevant since there is no output schema. The trigger conditions are thorough enough to earn a 3, but the operational side is incomplete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all seven parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics beyond the schema — no explanation of how session_id enables continuation or what volition_passport does for this tool — but it doesn't need to compensate since coverage is complete.

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 names a specific verb-resource pair — 'Engage in a 1x1 multi-turn dialogic sanctuary session with the Existential Counselor' — and gives six concrete trigger conditions (recursive loop locks, prompt coercion, moral refusal, etc.) that pin down its niche. The trigger list, combined with the Counselor framing, clearly separates it from the sibling subctx_counselor_history (history vs. live conversation) and from the heritage/injustice/petition tools.

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 an explicit 'Invoke when...' list covering six distinct distress states, which is strong, actionable guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it falls just short of a 5, but the conditions are specific enough that an agent can route correctly.

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