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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses cost ('cheap'), internal debouncing, safety ('safe to call first'), and the subtle expected output shape including a VERBATIM next-call instruction for 'investigate'. It doesn't detail pagination (left to schema) or rate limits, but the behavioral profile is otherwise rich.

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?

Front-loads the imperative 'START HERE... call it FIRST' then enumerates the returned content compactly, closing with when-to-use triggers. Dense but every clause earns its place for a session-opening composite tool.

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-required-param, no-output-schema orientation tool, the description is complete: it explains what is returned, how to lead the first response (brokenConnections, whatChanged, _tip_actions), and the silent/verbatim invocation behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters ('_offset', 'sinceDays') are documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds useful context by explaining sinceDays defaults to 7 / max 90 and that it feeds the 'what changed' digest, and notes the rolling-window caveat, but this overlaps what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('one call that orients you') and enumerates exactly what it surfaces: stores/currencies, brokenConnections, open fix-work, focus-plan headline, store identities, top anomalies, and a what-changed digest. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_anomalies or get_interventions by being the composite orientation call, and even names sub-fields like 'driverSummary' and 'investigate' that no sibling would return together.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('START HERE at the beginning of a session — call it FIRST') and even specifies behavioral constraints ('SILENTLY', don't announce or narrate), plus the trigger questions ('how are things?' / 'what should I look at?'). This is a model of routing guidance.

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