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

Annotations already convey readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behaviorhic. The description adds useful context by noting the session is short-lived and that the secret is required for access. However, it does not disclose what happens if the session has expired or if credentials are invalid.

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?

The description is exceptionally concise: two sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose; the second adds the essential prerequisite. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a read-only, idempotent status-check tool with only two parameters and robust annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains the session type and the required secret, and the low complexity means little additional context is necessary. A brief mention of the expected response could make it fully complete, but the current description is adequate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly explains that onboarding_id refers to the session and onboarding_secret is the credential returned at creation, which adds real meaning. However, it does not explicitly describe each parameter or their roles in detail.

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 states a clear verb ('Inspect') and a specific resource ('short-lived autonomous onboarding session'), which makes the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It is distinguishable from obvious siblings like onboarding_start, onboarding_pay, and onboarding_reconcile, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from generic mithrandir_inspect or mithrandir_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 implies usage: use this when you need to inspect an onboarding session and have the secret from creation. It provides a useful prerequisite ('secret returned at creation') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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