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 still adds real value beyond them: the response is Persian (fa-IR, RTL) text sourced from public fekrestan.com pages, and the server performs no account creation, which is exactly the side-effect clarification an agent needs.

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?

Three short sentences with the payload stated first, followed by the negative boundary and the output-format note. No sentence is decorative; each adds a distinct fact (content, no account creation, language/script, excluded content).

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, annotation-rich, output-schema-less tool, the description covers audience, content returned, language/encoding and the main exclusion. It stops short of indicating how many steps or links a caller should expect, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 and there is no parameter semantics for the description to compensate for. The schema is empty by design and the description correctly implies a parameterless call.

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 names the concrete payload — onboarding steps plus links to signup, privacy and contact — and identifies its audience (parents, with teachers also served). It draws a boundary against exercise-solving content ('No answers to in-app exercises'), which separates it from get_how_to_solve, though it does not distinguish itself from adjacent orientation tools like get_how_we_work or get_site_overview.

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?

Audience scope (parents/teachers) and a clear when-not ('No answers to in-app exercises') are stated, and the 'never creates an account' caveat steers agents to the signup link instead. However, no sibling tool is named as an alternative, so the routing decision against get_how_we_work, get_site_overview or get_roadmap is left to inference.

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