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 adds value beyond that by disclosing what the payload contains (two signup URLs and a contact address), which matters because there is no output schema.

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 no filler; the key distinction (two starting paths, no sign-up / no card) comes first. The trailing 'plus the contact address' is slightly list-like but still earns its place by signaling scope.

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-required-param informational tool with no output schema, the description gives an adequate preview of the return contents. It does not explain whether URLs are localized or how the data is structured, but no important calling decision is left unclear.

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?

Only one optional parameter (locale) with 100% schema description coverage and an explicit enum, so the schema carries it entirely. The description contributes nothing about locale or default behavior, which is acceptable at this coverage level but not additive.

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 resource concretely — the two onboarding paths (free scanner, free trial) plus URLs and a contact address — which is specific enough to distinguish it from get_pricing, get_product, and list_faq. It stops short of a clean verb+resource statement (it reads as a content inventory rather than 'Returns...'), so not a 5.

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 'how to start' framing implies the trigger (a new user asking how to get going), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing against siblings such as get_pricing, which overlaps with the 'free trial' content mentioned here.

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