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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that it 'Produces a receipted debrief record' and routes discoveries, indicating side effects, but doesn't detail permission requirements, idempotency, or failure behaviors. This is adequate but not rich.

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, each serving a distinct purpose: definition, routing behavior, and usage timing. No redundancy or filler.

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 full schema coverage and an output schema, the description doesn't need to enumerate parameters. It covers selection context (when to call), primary function, and side effects. It lacks detail on what a 'receipted debrief record' contains, but that's covered by the output schema.

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%, so parameter descriptions exist. The description adds semantic value by explicitly connecting 'discoveries' to 'suggested_actions' and the capture tools, which isn't fully articulated in individual property descriptions.

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 defines a specific action ('Structured session-end reflection') and resource ('session'), and distinguishes itself by specifying routing to capture tools like suggest_constraint, submit_skill, and flag_for_review. This differentiates it from the many getter/update siblings.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Call before closing any session longer than 10 minutes.' It also implies an alternative by routing discoveries to capture tools rather than calling them directly, though it doesn't list exclusions for shorter sessions or non-discovery sessions.

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