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

Annotations already flag this as a destructive, non-read-only write operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the 1-20 batch limit, the need for user authorization, and explicit prohibitions on raw conversation text, photos, credentials, identifiers, and diagnostic claims. It does not explain what makes the operation destructive or whether shared context can be removed, so it falls short of a 5.

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 tight sentences with no wasted words. The core action and limits are front-loaded, followed by the critical data-handling restrictions.

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 tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is largely complete: it gives purpose, scope, and content restrictions. It is missing explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling context tools and does not elaborate on the destructive annotation.

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 carry parameter meaning. It does add important semantics for the observations parameter: 1-20 items, concise derived summaries only, user-authorized content, and prohibited data types. It does not explain the confidence or evidence_count subfields, which prevents a 5.

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 specific verb and resource: sharing user-authorized context observations so SomaCheck can prepare richer propositions. It clearly distinguishes this SomaCheck-context sharing tool from the sibling VibeCheck tools by naming the target service and the type of data being shared.

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 by saying observations are user-authorized and should be derived summaries only, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tool routing is provided.

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