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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false). The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the flag is a reversible toggle and the scope is workspace-wide rather than per-user. It omits what happens to checklist progress on re-show, keeping this at a solid but not rich 3.

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, zero waste, front-loaded with the primary action and followed immediately by the reversal case. Nothing could be cut without losing meaning.

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 one-parameter workspace toggle with no output schema and annotations already covering safety, this is nearly complete. The only open question is whether re-showing resets or preserves prior checklist progression, which would matter to a caller but is not addressed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as defaulting true with false re-showing it. The description restates that same semantics rather than adding format or edge-case detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (hide/show) plus resource (Get started checklist) and scope (whole workspace). The name and description together make it trivially distinguishable from sibling dismiss_* tools, which target gaps, held replies, and training proposals rather than the onboarding checklist.

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?

The description implies when to use it (hide the checklist) and gives the inverse path (dismissed false re-shows it), but names no alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions under which you'd leave it alone. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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