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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the snapshot is 'live' and enumerates the two payload halves, but says nothing about freshness guarantees, cost, or what happens for a stopped/finished session. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and no redundancy. It is slightly jargon-dense (the 'under ``protocol``' aside is cryptic without the output schema), but nothing is wasted.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover safety, so the remaining gap is routing: among ~50 siblings, several are status/report tools and the description gives no cue for choosing this one. Adequate but incomplete for a session-scoped inspector.

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%: window (1-200, default 50) and session_id (from start_assignment) are both fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format, default, or sourcing detail beyond that, 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 resource and verb: a live snapshot of a protocol deploy session, enumerating the scheduler block, progress/threshold state, and telemetry window. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from adjacent status/reporting siblings such as protocol.list, calibration.status, or stream.status.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The phrase 'deploy session to inspect' in the schema implies the context, but the description itself never says when to call this instead of protocol.list or the stream/calibration status tools.

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