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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns a decrypted payload, is a read operation, requires auth.sessionToken forwarded as a Bearer token, and specifies the response shape (flat JSON, empty {} for empty payload). It doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, or token expiration, but the core behavior is covered. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Four sentences, each with a distinct purpose: core action, response shape, auth mechanism and source, and a config recommendation. The most important information is front-loaded. Zero filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and many siblings, the description covers the main purpose, response shape, and auth requirement. However, it lacks any comparison with the numerous sibling session tools, so an agent might select the wrong one without deeper inspection. It doesn't describe the payload contents beyond 'flat JSON object,' which might be insufficient for some uses. Overall, it's functional but not fully complete for correct sibling selection.

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 schema already describes all parameters (auth.sessionToken, connection.host, etc.), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a useful tip about preferring workspaceName and appId for config, and reiterates the sessionToken requirement. It doesn't add syntax or format details beyond the schema, but the extra guidance on connection fields is valuable. Overall, it meets the baseline.

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 and resource: 'Returns the decrypted session payload for the authenticated internal session token.' This is specific and distinguishes it from tools like get_sessions_my or get_sessions_identity, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The source endpoint adds clarity. However, it doesn't directly contrast with siblings, so it falls 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus other session-related siblings. The only guidance is 'Prefer connection.workspaceName and connection.appId as stable config,' which is about parameter usage, not tool selection. The description implies it's for retrieving the current session payload but doesn't state when an agent should choose this over get_sessions_my or get_sessions_identity.

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