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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and repeat-safety profile is known. The description adds little beyond that — 'Mirrors GET /api/onboarding/resume/:token' restates the read-only nature already covered by annotations, and says nothing about what state is returned or whether resuming mutates session progress.

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 front-loaded in the first clause; nothing is buried or padded. The trailing sentence about mirroring the REST endpoint is low-value for an agent but short enough not to hurt.

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 should indicate what a resume returns (session state, next unanswered question, or completion status) since that governs what the agent does next. Annotations cover safety and the schema covers the only parameter, but the result shape and the relationship to commit_onboarding/submit_onboarding_answer remain unexplained.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents resumeToken. The description only restates that the token is the key, adding no format, source, or validity information beyond the schema — baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 ('Resume an onboarding session by resume token'), which is more concrete than a bare name restatement. However it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like get_onboarding_session or start_onboarding, so an agent must infer the difference between resuming, fetching, and starting a 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?

Usage is implied by 'by resume token' — the agent knows it needs a token in hand — but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_onboarding_session or start_onboarding, and no exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., token expiry, whether the session must already exist).

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