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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds that it never signs or submits and requires the caller's session capability token, which is useful auth context. It does not over-promise side effects or contradict annotations.

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 short sentences front-load the action ('Read a v2 session's current workflow state...'), then add the auth requirement and safety guarantee. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 simple read-only tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description names the returned content (workflow state, unsigned action) and the required precondition (session capability token). It doesn't describe the output shape or how to obtain/refresh the token, but the absent output schema and low parameter count keep this from being a major gap.

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 0%, and the description compensates only partly: it identifies session_token as the caller's session capability token, but it does not explain session_id's role or where the token comes from. The UUID format for session_id is left entirely to the schema.

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 uses the verb 'Read' and names a specific resource: 'a v2 session's current workflow state and current unsigned action.' The 'v2' qualifier and 'read-only; never signs or submits' help separate it from prepare/submit/observe siblings, though it does not explicitly name a sibling such as assetfare_read_session.

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?

It implies use for inspecting a v2 session's state before signing or submitting and states the precondition of a session capability token. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative, so selection still relies on inference.

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