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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds that this returns guidance content rather than mutating anything, and supplies the sequencing constraint. The only shortfall is that it does not say whether the script is static or tailored to the current workspace state.

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 sentences, zero filler. The content description comes first and the sequencing instruction second, so the most actionable guidance is front-loaded.

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 guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what comes back and when to invoke it. It stops short of clarifying whether the script adapts to the existing workspace or is fixed content, a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 and the baseline applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed by framing it as a script to be read.

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 the resource concretely: a plain-English setup script covering 'what to ask, in what order' for a non-technical brokerage owner. That is far more specific than the bare name get_started, and it is clearly differentiated from create_workspace and about_avlira, though it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb+resource.

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 states precisely when to call it — 'right after about_avlira, before create_workspace' — which pins down its position in the onboarding sequence and implicitly excludes calling it mid-setup or standalone. An agent needs no inference to place this call correctly.

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