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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description discloses that the tool runs locally, makes no network calls, and never reads or requires credentials. This is important behavioral context that is not available in the annotations alone.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose and precondition. Every sentence contributes either behavioral context, parameter semantics, or routing guidance without redundancy.

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 single-optional-parameter helper with no output schema, the description fully covers the call flow: first call with no input, second call with hasToken, and the resulting guidance paths. No missing information would prevent an agent from invoking it correctly.

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 schema already documents hasToken with an enum, but the description adds meaningful semantics: hasToken 'yes' leads to connect guidance and verify_access, while 'no' leads to prospect-intake guidance. It also clarifies that omitting the parameter returns the fork question.

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 clearly states the tool is a pre-connection onboarding helper that returns a fork question and provides token-based guidance. It is explicitly distinguished from siblings by describing the connection and prospect-intake paths and by referencing verify_access as the next step.

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 says call this before any SMI token is set, with no input to get the fork question, then call again with hasToken 'yes' or 'no' for the appropriate guidance. It also points to verify_access for the connect path, giving clear routing among related tools.

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