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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds 'deterministic' and 'signed,' which are genuine behavioral details beyond the annotations, but it does not describe failure modes, input constraints, or what the signed assessment is used for. No contradiction with 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?

The description is admirably short and front-loads the core idea, but it is terse to the point of underspecification. The opening phrase repeats the tool title and the remaining clause is generic, so while there is no filler, the brevity sacrifices necessary context.

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?

The output schema and annotations cover the return and safety profile, but the description does not explain what session continuity means, what inputs should contain, or when this assessment is needed. Given the required previous/current inputs and a large sibling set, the description is not complete enough for reliable tool selection or invocation.

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 schema lists required fields 'previous' and 'current' without property descriptions, and the description only refers to 'supplied input,' adding no meaning to these fields. Although context reports high schema coverage and zero formal parameters, an agent still has to infer what 'previous' and 'current' represent, and the description does not help.

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 states that the tool produces a 'deterministic signed assessment over supplied input,' which gives a general action and resource, but it never explains what 'Agent Session Continuity' actually determines or how it relates to the input. The phrase is vague and does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like signed_result_comparator or verify.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what preconditions exist, or when a sibling tool would be more appropriate. The description only defines the tool in isolation and provides no context for selection.

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