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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior, and it does so well: it defines the soul, states that it is empty when absent or when the API key is not linked to a human account, and notes the alternative return channel via memory_session_ensure. It does not explicitly declare side-effect freedom, but 'Return' plus the empty-state behavior strongly imply a read-only operation.

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 compact and information-dense: a clear one-sentence summary, a useful definition of the output, and two important caveats. Every sentence earns its place without 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 zero-parameter getter with an output schema, this description is complete: it names the resource, scope, empty-case behavior, authentication caveat, and a related alternative tool. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret the tool is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The description instead explains the returned resource clearly, which is the relevant semantic information for this tool.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return this person's private soul for the current org.' It then explains what a soul is, distinguishing this getter from the many memory_* siblings and clarifying the 'get' semantics.

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 conveys when the tool is appropriate by defining the target resource and scope ('private soul for the current org'). It also names memory_session_ensure as an alternate source of the same data, though it does not fully spell out when one should be preferred over the other.

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