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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it declares read-only, discloses that the handle is a rotating code required by territory/map tools, and notes that per-tool rules and workflow essays live elsewhere. These are non-obvious behavioral facts an agent cannot infer from the empty schema.

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?

Front-loaded with 'CALL THIS FIRST' and organized into bracketed clauses (Tier, When, Exempt). Every sentence carries information, though the run-on enumeration of ins and outs is slightly dense and could be split for readability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be fully explained, yet the description still covers what comes back and how the handle feeds other tools. For a zero-param entry-point tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the shape of the return payload (result.text and result.guidance_handle), which goes beyond the empty input schema.

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 and its role ('Startup Guide + Handle'), immediately distinguishes it by naming the two things it returns (result.text brief and result.guidance_handle). An agent can tell it apart from siblings like discover_intent or workflow_advisor without opening any schema.

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 explicit triggering conditions: session start, after blocked_by=guidance_required, or when shared rules are unclear. It even lists the tools that are exempt, so the agent knows which calls do not require the handle. This is about as complete as routing guidance gets.

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