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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: it discloses the access boundary ('Scoped to the calling user') and the shape of the payload (current state plus outstanding pendingQuestions and onboarding progress), which an agent cannot learn from 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 sentences with no filler; the resource and lookup key lead, and the payload contents and access scope follow. Every clause carries information.

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 no output schema, the description does the necessary work by naming the notable returned fields and the user scoping. Minor gaps remain, such as behavior for an unknown or foreign sessionId, but the essentials for a correct read-only call are present.

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 100% and the single parameter is fully documented as 'WorkSession id'. 'By id' in the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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 verb and resource ('Get the current state of a single work session by id') and enumerates what the response covers: pendingQuestions and onboarding progress. The word 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from the plural sibling list_work_sessions, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the tool for polling one session's state rather than enumerating sessions. There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over list_work_sessions or get_onboarding_session, and no stated prerequisites.

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