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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the read-only nature ('Costs a read, not a publish') and defines the processing state ('still being screened'). It does not cover auth requirements or failure behaviors, but the core behavioral trait of a status-check tool is disclosed clearly.

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, zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the tool's entire semantic payload (statuses and media readiness), and the second delivers the critical read-vs-publish cost distinction. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating all possible statuses and the media-ready flag, which tells the agent what to expect back. Minor gaps: no guidance on what happens for invalid ids or whether only the caller's confessions are queryable, but complexity is low and the core is covered.

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 schema already describes confession_id as 'The id confess returned.' The description adds only the scope qualifier 'one of your confessions', implying ownership, but adds no syntax, format, or acquisition details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the resource (one confession) and the action (checking where it stands), enumerating the exact statuses returned: processing, published, refused, failed, archived, plus media readiness. It implicitly differentiates from publish-type siblings via 'Costs a read, not a publish' and from read_confessions by the singular scope 'one of your confessions', though it never names a sibling 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 implied: check this tool when you want to see the status of a single confession. The 'Costs a read, not a publish' line hints the tool is safe/non-mutating, but there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus read_confessions or when not to use it, and no alternatives are named.

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