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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful content scope (what topics the guide covers), but does not disclose return format, localization behavior, or other operational traits. With annotations covering safety, the added context is modest but appropriate.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key concept (step-by-step guide) followed by concise topic coverage. It could be slightly more explicit about what is returned, but it wastes no words.

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 simple read-only tool with no output schema and annotations that cover safety, the description provides the basic content scope. However, it omits any explanation of the lang parameter and gives no usage guidance relative to siblings, leaving gaps that an agent must fill by inference.

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 0% and the single optional parameter (lang) is not mentioned in the description at all. The enum values are self-descriptive as language codes, but the description fails to explain that lang selects the guide's language or that it is optional. The description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 resource (a start guide) and outlines its covered topics: creating a profile, installing the app, and fixing common problems. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_veliane_facts or get_veliane_price by focusing on onboarding, though it doesn't explicitly say it returns step-by-step instructions.

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 content (onboarding for new Veliane users), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives such as search_veliane_help or get_veliane_feature. An agent must infer that this is for initial setup rather than general help.

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