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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context not in the structured fields: personal notes remain on the user's device and are neither read nor submitted, which bounds what the tool touches. Return values are covered by the output schema, so no further disclosure is required.

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?

Two short sentences, zero padding, with the substantive content front-loaded ahead of the privacy clarification. Every clause carries information an agent cannot get from the schema or annotations.

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?

With no parameters, full annotation coverage, and an output schema describing the return shape, the remaining burden on the description is small and it discharges the main privacy concern. The one gap is routing guidance against the many sibling content tools, which keeps this from a 5.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema leaves nothing to explain and the baseline is 4. The description appropriately says nothing about arguments rather than inventing them.

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 the resource content specifically ('published questions, topics and practical rules before a session'), which is more than a restatement of the tool name. It lacks an explicit verb, but the resource is identifiable and distinct from content-oriented siblings like get_faq and get_practice_overview. No sibling is named as the alternative, 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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_faq, get_practice_overview, or get_inquiry_topics. The phrase 'before a session' implies a pre-session context, but the agent must infer that this is the prep-material tool rather than a general FAQ tool. No when-not guidance is offered.

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