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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuinely useful context that the result is scoped to the authenticated user and mirrors a REST endpoint, but says nothing about error behavior for unknown/foreign ids or what the 'projection' contains.

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 with the action and scope front-loaded and the provenance/authorization note second; nothing is padded or repeated from the title.

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?

A simple, well-annotated single-parameter read, so not much is required; but with no output schema the description could say what a session projection returns (state, steps, answers) or how it differs from get_work_session. It is adequate but leaves the return shape and sibling relationship unaddressed.

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?

Single required sessionId parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description only echoes 'by id' and adds no syntax, format, or source hint (e.g., where to obtain a sessionId) beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get an onboarding session projection by id'), which is unambiguous and distinct from list_work_sessions or start_onboarding. It stops short of naming which sibling to prefer in ambiguous cases, but the read-a-single-session purpose is clear.

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?

No when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives, despite siblings like get_work_session, resume_onboarding, and list_work_sessions that an agent could easily confuse it with. The only usage constraint given is the implicit 'by id' and that it is scoped to the authenticated user.

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