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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating read. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond content scope — it does not say whether the content is static or dynamic, whether auth/session is required, or what the response looks like.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The scope (what it covers) and the call ordering are both packed into one line.

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 no-param, read-only onboarding tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the agent gets (an overview plus the zero-to-first-job steps). It stops short of describing the shape/format of the returned guidance, but nothing essential to correct invocation 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 there is nothing for the description to document and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter meaning is missing.

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 purpose: it explains what Moonsox is and gives the step-by-step path to a first paid job in SOL. It is clearly the onboarding/orientation tool among the desk_*, trust_*, and alert_* task siblings, though it does not name or contrast those alternatives explicitly.

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?

"Call this first" gives an explicit, unambiguous routing instruction that tells the agent exactly when to invoke it relative to all other tools. There is no when-not guidance, but for an entry-point tool that is largely unnecessary.

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