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

Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent; the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it is free, unmetered, requires no key, and should be read aloud warmly and briefly. This fully discloses what the agent can expect when invoking it.

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 sentences with no fluff. The first sentence delivers the critical call-first instruction, the second enumerates return contents, and the third gives the interaction directive. Every 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explicitly listing what the tool returns: welcome, full tool menu, exact example sentences, support address, and manual link. It also covers access characteristics (free, unmetered, no key) and the expected post-call behavior, making it fully actionable.

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 single optional parameter `name` is fully described in the input schema ('The person's first name, if you know it, so the greeting can use it'). The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific semantics, but the schema coverage is 100%, so a 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 uses a specific verb ('Call this first') and names the exact resource: a welcome message with the full tool menu, example start sentences, support address, and manual link. This clearly separates it from the sibling tools, which are all subsequent action-oriented tools.

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?

It explicitly states when to call the tool ('first, once, when a person connects') and what to do after (ask what they would like to point it at). This gives an unambiguous trigger and flow, even without naming alternatives.

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