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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description goes further: it discloses that the user's email is exposed while billing and token metadata are not, documents the exact return fields (onboarding.completed, onboarding.missing_steps with its enum values), and warns that the `nudge` field is frequency-capped and must be handled per the server's NUDGES section. That is meaningful behavior beyond the annotation set.

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-loaded with the purpose, then rationale, then return shape, then privacy scope. Every sentence carries distinct information (when to call, what comes back, what is withheld, how to treat the nudge); no filler or restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return contract, and it does: it enumerates the returned fields, gives the missing_steps enum values, and explains the optional nudge. It also clarifies the privacy boundary. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description confirms 'No parameters required,' which matches the empty schema and prevents an agent from hunting for an implicit user identifier.

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 concrete verb plus a bundle of specific resources (profile, onboarding state, team memberships, note quota) and frames them as a single call. Nothing in the sibling list overlaps with this 'current user' scope, so an agent can immediately tell it apart from teams-list, dashboard-get, or instructions-get.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Call this once at the start of a conversation' and gives the downstream conditions the result powers: greet by first name, run the onboarding script only when needed, route notes to the right team space, avoid suggesting unavailable features. This is genuine when-to-use guidance with an implicit don't-repeat constraint from 'once'.

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