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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the topical scope of the guidance (reading rules, proposals, creation rules) and no behavioral detail such as whether it is static documentation or dynamically generated; with annotations in place, a 3 is 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause maps to a distinct guidance domain. Nothing could be removed without losing scope information.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. For a 0-param, read-only guidance tool, stating the three covered domains is complete enough, though it could note that it is intended as a prerequisite to the other tools.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the schema, and the schema coverage is 100%.

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 makes clear this is an onboarding/guidance tool covering article and map reading, anonymous proposals, and authenticated map creation rules, which distinguishes it from the action-oriented siblings. The opening 'Start here' is a weak verb, but the topical scope makes the purpose inferable without opening the schema.

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?

'Start here' gives an explicit directive on when to invoke this tool relative to the rest of the Alkemata workflow. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the entry-point framing is strong usage guidance for a 0-param guidance tool.

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