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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so 'Reads only; changes nothing' is largely reinforcing structured data. The description does add non-redundant value by disclosing the return content (balance explanation, step-by-step flow, example prompts), which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of describing format or length of that 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?

Three short clauses: trigger, payload, exclusion. The trigger is front-loaded before the enumeration of return content, and the negative routing sentence is placed last where it is most useful. No filler or repeated restatement of the tool name.

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 zero-parameter, read-only onboarding tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: when to call it, what comes back, and which sibling to prefer instead. No meaningful gap remains.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly implies a no-argument invocation by never mentioning inputs.

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+resource (onboarding/help content for Ahel) and enumerates the payload: what Ahel is, how the prepaid balance works, the three steps to find/price/run a task, and example prompts. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling by naming capability_search as the tool for a specific capability ask.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when the person asks what Ahel is, what it can do or how to begin') and an explicit exclusion ('NOT for: finding a data task or provider tool for a specific ask'), naming the correct alternative. Both the when and the when-not are present with no inference required.

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