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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false), the description discloses real behavioral consequences: the server fetches the title and share image, confirming starts the build, cards pop up and can be left for later, and a new website/brand card replaces an unanswered one. The replacement rule is especially valuable given idempotentHint=false.

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?

It is a single dense paragraph, but the access gate ('oriiion STAFF ONLY') is front-loaded and each clause carries distinct information about a kind. Slightly long, yet no sentence is pure filler.

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-behavior tool with no output schema and full param coverage, the description covers the important semantics: access restriction, per-kind effects, and card replacement. It omits what the caller observes after sending (success/return value, error cases), a minor gap.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including the kind enum and the message/websiteUrl conditions. The description's prose largely restates the same kind semantics rather than adding new format or defaulting detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Show the customer something on their onboarding page') and enumerates the three card kinds with their distinct effects. It does not name or differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as send_message or finish_agent_onboarding, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives clear conditions for each enum value: website to confirm a site, brand to approve logo/colours/fonts, note for a chat message (and explicitly ties note to answering the customer's chat). There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative tool to use instead, which keeps it from a 5.

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