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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds useful context by specifying the exact content returned (product scope, OAuth metadata, workflow stages, canonical links). This goes beyond the schema and annotations.

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 description is a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Returns machine-readable...') and packs meaningful details without redundancy. Every phrase adds value.

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 no-argument, read-only tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool provides. It lists the content categories and format (machine-readable), making it self-sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and results.

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 input schema has zero parameters and no arguments are needed. Per the baseline rule for 0-param tools, the description is not required to elaborate on parameters, and it correctly makes no misleading parameter claims.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') with a clear resource ('machine-readable Spala onboarding information') and explicitly lists contained items (product scope, OAuth metadata, etc.), which distinguishes it from siblings like spala_get_tool_map or spala_help.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and 'onboarding information' but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusion scenarios. It simply describes what the tool returns.

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