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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it is a session-bootstrap aggregate call and it discloses the shape of its payload, including that locked features come back with the unlocking plan and link.

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 imperative instruction is front-loaded in the first four words, then a single semicolon-delimited list covers the payload. It is dense and slightly long, but every clause maps to a distinct return area, so nothing is 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries full responsibility for explaining return values, and it does so item by item. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and a zero-parameter schema, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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?

There are zero parameters, so no parameter semantics are needed; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing arguments and instead spends its space on the return contract.

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 enumerates concretely what the tool returns (user identity and language, plan and limits, projects with pending items, setup state, app links, usage guide), which is far more specific than the name 'get_started'. It implicitly overlaps with siblings like get_account, get_plans, list_projects and get_guide but never names them as alternatives, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

'Call this first in every session' gives an unambiguous trigger for invocation, which is stronger guidance than most bootstrap tools provide. It stops short of exclusions — it doesn't say whether the account/plan/guide siblings become redundant after this call, or whether to re-call mid-session after state changes.

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