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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description aligns with that by emphasizing a return value ('returns a LIVE MCP tool catalog') rather than a mutation. It adds useful behavioral context about the content and strategic framing ('no fixed labor split', 'FO wins recurring / not-yet-built / long-running') without contradicting the 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?

The description is longer than a simple one-liner, but it front-loads the core purpose and return value, then adds genuinely useful usage and strategy context. The phrasing is dense and somewhat jargon-heavy, but each sentence earns its place.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the agent will receive (tool catalog + research prompt) and when to invoke it. It also covers partner-specific content and refresh timing. It does not detail edge cases like what happens without a companyId or for non-partners, but that is not a major gap for a read-only, zero-required-parameter tool.

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 host and companyId already have clear descriptions. The tool description adds some host-related context by mentioning Claude Code and Cursor, but it does not materially clarify parameter behavior beyond the schema, so the 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 states a specific action (onboard the host coding CoS) and explicitly names what it returns: a LIVE MCP tool catalog plus a deep-research prompt. It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_cos_preferences or get_my_channel_partner_starter_pack because it frames the tool as the first-connect onboarding and optimization-research helper.

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 gives explicit usage triggers: 'Use on first MCP connect, partner connect, or when the host asks how to use FreedomOS optimally' and 'Re-call whenever FO ships tools.' It does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it, but the conditions are concrete enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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