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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses the self-service prerequisite, the conditional payload inclusion for active-status rows, pageSize clamping, the fact that auth.userToken is forwarded as a Bearer token, and the source endpoint. This is rich, operationally meaningful behavioral disclosure.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core behavior in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds a distinct operational fact: prerequisite, payload rule, sort/page behavior, source, auth, and config guidance. No filler or repetition is present.

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?

Given the endpoint's paging/sorting/filtering complexity and the absence of annotations, the description covers the critical invocation facts: auth requirements, workspace prerequisite, pagination behavior, filter semantics through schema, and config guidance. It does not detail the exact page response shape, but for a read-only paged list the provided operational details are sufficient for an agent to call it 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 description adds meaning not obvious from the schema: pageSize is clamped to 1–200 with default 20, sort keys mirror the admin list, auth.userToken is forwarded as a Bearer token, and connection.workspaceName/appId are recommended as stable config. It does not restate every nested query filter, but those are already described in the schema, so the added operational context earns above-baseline credit.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it 'Returns a page of sessions for the current user within the current workspace.' It also positions itself as a self-service dashboard endpoint, which separates it from the admin-oriented sibling get_sessions. This is clearly more than a restatement of the title.

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 gives clear context for when this endpoint is appropriate: it is self-service, requires workspace enableSelfService: true, and targets the current user's sessions. It also advises preferring connection.workspaceName and connection.appId as stable config. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'use get_sessions for admin lists,' so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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