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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data, not prose. What the description adds beyond that is a preview of the returned content (capabilities, limits, costs, plan, credits), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not mention response size or whether the payload is static vs. account-personalized, so it stops at 4.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the invocation trigger ('Start here with a new user, or when unsure what to make') followed by the enumeration of what it returns. The parenthetical list of start modes is dense but earns its place by telling the agent exactly what coverage to expect. Minor cost: the comma-list runs long enough that it reads as a run-on.

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 orientation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the one thing structured fields cannot: an inventory of what the response will cover, so the agent knows this single call replaces several discovery calls. Complete enough to call correctly; only missing is a note on whether the content is personalized to the current account.

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, which is the baseline-4 case. The description correctly does not waste words on parameter semantics and instead spends its space describing the returned content.

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 purpose: an onboarding/orientation tool that returns what Fabeo makes, the ways to start, the seven video styles, limits, costs, template categories, and the account's plan and credits. That is far more specific than a tautology like 'get started', and it clearly is not a creation or listing tool. It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as get_account (plan and credits) or list_templates (template categories).

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 with a new user, or when unsure what to make' gives a clear trigger condition for invocation. It lacks an explicit 'do not use this for X, use sibling Y instead' clause, which keeps it out of 5 territory given the many overlapping read tools.

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