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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Start session + work stamp', implying a state change without detailing side effects, idempotency, required permissions, or what the work stamp represents. It provides minimal behavioral context.

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 extremely short and avoids fluff, but it is under-specified to the point of obscurity. 'Start session + work stamp' is concise but not clear enough to be effective.

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?

This tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description fails to explain what a work stamp is, what starting a session entails, or the role of agent_id. The information is severely incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 defines one parameter, agent_id, with only type string and 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what agent_id is, its format, or how it relates to starting a session. There is no compensatory information.

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 says 'Start session + work stamp', which uses a specific verb 'start' and names a resource 'session', but 'work stamp' is ambiguous. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like pause_and_route or leave_with_receipt, which also relate to session lifecycle.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions under which one would call enter_lounge instead of a sibling.

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