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

Annotations already establish the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the mock/test environment warning, the mention of limits, and the fact that it contains links. This is valuable for an agent deciding whether to rely on the tool's content.

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 concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose, add the critical test-money warning in uppercase, and end with a clear call to action. Every phrase 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 parameterless informational tool, the description covers what the tool is about, what it contains, the key limitation (test money only), and how to use it (start here). There is no missing information that would impede an agent from invoking it successfully.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is fully covered (100%), so the baseline is 4. The description adds relevant context about the tool's content rather than parameters, which is appropriate for a no-input overview tool.

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 what the tool provides: an overview of AFG, the job flow, limits, and links. It also adds the critical testing caveat and the explicit instruction to start here, making it distinct from the action-oriented sibling tools.

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?

"Start here" explicitly positions this as the entry point for the AFG workflow, which is strong usage guidance for an overview tool with no parameters. It does not name specific alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear relative to the action-based siblings.

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