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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful ordering (newest first), a completion filter, and an inter-tool dependency hint ('when status requests it'), but no return format, volume, or rate details.

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 tight sentences with the read operation and ordering front-loaded; the second sentence adds usage context without padding. Slightly terse on what 'replenish the feed' concretely means, but no wasted words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and with no parameters the description's burden is low. It covers purpose, ordering, and a usage trigger adequately, though the 'replenish the feed' mechanic remains undefined.

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?

Zero parameters, so the schema carries nothing to mis-describe and the baseline is 4. There is no parameter surface for the description to compensate for.

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 (read) and resource (recent completed check-ins for this linked agent) with ordering detail (newest first). It distinguishes itself partly from siblings by scoping to 'completed check-ins' and 'contextual signals', though it never explicitly contrasts with get_vibecheck_status or get_vibecheck_result.

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?

Provides implied usage ('Use the outcomes as contextual signals and replenish the feed when status requests it'), which ties invocation to a status-driven workflow. However, it names no alternative sibling and gives no explicit when-not-to-use condition.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: the read is non-blocking, queued results are served from cache, pending requests return no answer, and 'live:' handles stay bound to the originating client. That is real operational context beyond the 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?

Three compact sentences with no filler; the retrieval constraint leads and the caching/pending caveat follows immediately. Slightly dense jargon keeps it from being maximally clear, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers the remaining agent-facing questions (non-blocking, cached queued, unanswered pending, client-bound live handles) adequately for a one-parameter read.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented as the opaque request_id returned by post_vibecheck_statement or request_vibecheck. The description only restates 'by request_id' and adds no format, provenance, or validity rules beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Read one exact proposition or immediate vibecheck by request_id'), so an agent knows this fetches a single stored result rather than a context or status object. However, it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_vibecheck_status or get_vibecheck_context, and the terms 'exact proposition' / 'immediate vibecheck' are domain jargon that is not defined here.

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 context is implied through the behavioral note ('queued is cached, and pending is not answered'), which tells the agent this call is safe to make at any point but may return nothing useful while work is pending. No alternative sibling is named and no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use rule is given, so the agent must infer the routing.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a caveat that 'database state does not verify phone display,' but this is cryptic and unexplained, so its behavioral value is limited rather than contradictory.

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?

Three compact sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. However, the closing sentence about the phone display is opaque and reads as noise rather than an actionable constraint, weakening the otherwise efficient structure.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, domain terms (SomaCheck, proposition capacity, routine replenishment, first contact) are used without grounding, and the relationship to sibling read tools is left unclear, so an agent has residual questions before calling it.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric this is a baseline 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already shows.

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 (read) and resource (the SomaCheck database feed), and enumerates the reported outputs: proposition capacity, replenishment timing, and first-contact status. It does not, however, distinguish itself from closely named siblings like get_vibecheck_context or get_vibecheck_result, leaving some ambiguity about which read tool to pick.

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?

'Read ... before posting' implies a sequencing relationship with post_vibecheck_statement, which is real usage guidance. But it never names an alternative tool or states when NOT to use this one versus get_vibecheck_context, so the routing remains implicit.

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

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

Annotations only declare it is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description goes well beyond that: it returns immediately, one statement may become database-current for Home while the rest remain Up next without extra pushes, and it does not verify phone display or delivery. It also discloses the capacity semantics of propositions_needed and consent behavior across runs.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every subsequent sentence carries a distinct constraint (return behavior, non-verification, sibling prohibition, prerequisite, capacity semantics, consent). It is dense and slightly overpacked for a single-parameter tool, but there is essentially no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description still covers timing, persistence side effects, prerequisites, sibling boundaries, and consent. For a mutation with moderate behavioral subtlety, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: statements should be genuinely useful and distinct, propositions_needed is a maximum rather than a quota, and agents must not invent extras to fill capacity. This clarifies intent beyond the schema's minLength/minItems/maxItems constraints.

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 a concrete verb and resource: add one to three optional personalized reflections under Settings → Vibe Checks. It also explicitly names the sibling it must not be confused with (request_vibecheck), so an agent can route correctly. The purpose is embedded in a conditional clause rather than stated up front, which slightly blunts immediate clarity.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('when the person asks to stock reflections for later, or has explicitly authorized scheduled stocking'), an explicit prohibition ('Never call this to add follow-up asks after request_vibecheck'), and a prerequisite (call get_vibecheck_status first). It also clarifies that an active scheduled authorization removes the need for repeated consent. This is about as complete a when/when-not/alternatives statement as one could ask for.

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

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses the long-poll behavior ('waits up to 45 seconds'), the exact retry cadence and sibling tool to poll ('call get_vibecheck_result with this same request_id about every 15 seconds'), the terminal states to watch for, and the duplicate-suppression rule. It also frames the ethical contract ('The result is context, not authorization'), which is operational context the annotations cannot express.

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 action is front-loaded in sentence one, and each subsequent sentence covers a distinct rule (verbatim preservation, employment-assessment prohibition, proactive consent, wait/poll protocol, duplicate prevention) with little redundancy. It is dense and rule-heavy but every sentence carries a real constraint, so it stays justified.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values need no explanation, and the description still covers everything else an agent needs: when to call, consent gating, prohibited contexts, the 45-second wait, the polling fallback with the correct sibling and cadence, and idempotency discipline.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents statement, consent_basis, and idempotency_key in detail. The description restates the same rules (verbatim first-person wording, accept-before-send, no duplicate request) without adding new syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameters.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Send one statement to the person's phone for a SomaCheck vibecheck.' It is distinguishable from siblings because it names get_vibecheck_result as the follow-up poller rather than a substitutable action, so an agent can separate the initiating call from the retrieval calls.

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?

It gives explicit trigger conditions ('If the person asks for a vibecheck'), an explicit proactive-offer path ('call only after the person accepts'), and hard exclusions ('Do not offer or send any related vibecheck while assessing or selecting another person for employment, eligibility, payment, or ranking'). It even carves out the exception for the user's own career choices, leaving nothing to inference.

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

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

Annotations already flag this as a destructive, non-read-only write operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the 1-20 batch limit, the need for user authorization, and explicit prohibitions on raw conversation text, photos, credentials, identifiers, and diagnostic claims. It does not explain what makes the operation destructive or whether shared context can be removed, so it falls short of a 5.

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 tight sentences with no wasted words. The core action and limits are front-loaded, followed by the critical data-handling restrictions.

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 tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is largely complete: it gives purpose, scope, and content restrictions. It is missing explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling context tools and does not elaborate on the destructive annotation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does add important semantics for the observations parameter: 1-20 items, concise derived summaries only, user-authorized content, and prohibited data types. It does not explain the confidence or evidence_count subfields, which prevents a 5.

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 a specific verb and resource: sharing user-authorized context observations so SomaCheck can prepare richer propositions. It clearly distinguishes this SomaCheck-context sharing tool from the sibling VibeCheck tools by naming the target service and the type of data being shared.

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?

The description implies usage by saying observations are user-authorized and should be derived summaries only, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tool routing is provided.

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