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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about what the tool returns (orientation info, enabled/available services, next steps) but doesn't disclose details like whether it makes network calls or caches results. No contradiction with 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the most important information ('Orientation for a new connection'), and every clause earns its place. The 'Call this first' instruction is a high-value addition at the end.

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 orientation tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and when to call it. It could mention what the output looks like (e.g., a list or summary), but the annotations and simplicity make this a minor gap.

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%, so the single optional 'session' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter-specific meaning, but with full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states this is an orientation tool for a new connection, listing what it covers: cross-service jobs, enabled/available services, and next steps. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the entry point ('Call this first'), though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Call this first,' which is strong usage guidance for a new connection. It implies this is the starting point before using other tools like datailo_plan or datailo_invoke, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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