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

Although annotations already declare the safe read-only/idempotent profile, the description adds substantial behavioral context the structured fields cannot convey: no login required, stateless answer carrying across calls, the 'null means accept the recommendation' convention, an explicit 'never invent user answers' rule, and the timeout caveat for external clients. This is well beyond the annotation baseline.

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?

The opening sentence is front-loaded and the whole description fits in one dense paragraph with little filler; each clause (flow, identity rule, finish trigger, scope limit, timeout caveat) carries information. Readability suffers slightly from packing so many distinct rules into a single run-on block.

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 multi-turn, three-parameter tool with no output schema and no schema documentation, the description covers the interaction flow, answer-identity rule, finish condition, and scope limits well enough to drive correct use. The uncovered locale parameter and the absence of any detail on the returned question/choice payload are the remaining gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It explains the answers array semantics (append the chosen value, null for the recommendation) and implies the finish action, which is valuable, but it never mentions locale at all, and action's question/default behavior is only inferred.

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 ('Start or continue oriiion onboarding') and adds scope boundaries (starter planning only, not account setup or social authorization). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many onboarding siblings (complete_onboarding, get_onboarding_status, finish_agent_onboarding, get_agent_onboarding), so an agent cannot fully disambiguate from the description alone.

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 real when-to-use guidance for the finish action ('Use finish when the user asks for the recommended plan') and a when-not-to-call-it condition ('only call finish for silence if that client actually supports an agreed timeout'). It does not, however, tell the agent when to reach for this tool instead of the sibling onboarding tools.

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