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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the 4096-byte cap, the truncation contract via 'truncated', that the operation is read-only, and the unauthenticated path (onboarding block, no tenant created). Auth/binding nuance is further handled in the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the payoff (what you get in one call), then truncation handling, then safety/auth notes. Dense but every clause carries information; the parenthetical enumerations make it slightly run-on 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?

Output schema exists, yet the description still frames the return shape and the truncation escape hatch, plus auth behavior. For a resumption/orchestration tool with one optional param, an agent has everything needed 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 description coverage is 100%, and the tenant_key schema text already explains binding, signup, header precedence, and implicit signup. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Resume where you left off') and enumerates exactly what comes back: tools with last call status, unfinished runs, newest notes, host changelog, and a suggested next_call. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the per-section tools (host.tool.list, host.runs.list, host.note.list, host.changelog) an agent would use instead.

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?

Clear context for when to use it (to resume in one call) and explicit routing to the section-specific tools when output is truncated. It doesn't explicitly contrast with host.state.get or host.state.list, which are the closest-looking siblings, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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