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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by disclosing the nature of the output (endpoints, verifiable outputs, boundaries) and setting honest expectations about live vs. future features, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentence that leads with 'Start here', immediately signaling the tool's purpose. Every phrase contributes meaning, with no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter onboarding tool with no output schema, the description explains the main return categories (actions, endpoints, outputs, boundaries) well enough for an agent to decide to call it. It does not detail output structure, but that is not required given the tool's simplicity and informational role.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema carries no burden. Per the baseline rule for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description also indirectly clarifies that no input is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and names concrete resources: useful actions, machine endpoints, verifiable outputs, and boundaries. It clearly communicates the launchpad's role as an entry point, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the similarly discovery-oriented sibling get_faceabot_discovery.

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' provides clear positional guidance for when to use this tool first. It implies the launchpad is the initial entry point before other tools, but it does not mention exclusions or alternative tools explicitly, leaving some inference to the agent.

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