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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and locality are covered. The description confirms the tool returns guidance steps, but says nothing about the shape, length, or specificity of that guidance, nor whether it is generic or tailored. With annotations in place, that adds modest value.

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?

Two short sentences with the precondition front-loaded and zero boilerplate. The trailing list ('send more data, or instrument or add another service') is mildly redundant with the opening clause, but nothing is wasted.

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-parameter, read-only guide lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose and trigger well enough to call correctly. The one missing piece is an explicit pointer to get_onboarding_guide as the alternative for users not yet sending data.

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 disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed by describing purely situational triggers.

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 specific verb and resource (get the instrumentation/onboarding steps for adding another service) and bounds the scope with 'once the user already sends some data to Telemetry Machine'. That precondition implicitly separates it from the initial onboarding flow, but the closest sibling, get_onboarding_guide, is never named, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Gives a clear trigger ('user wants to send more data, or instrument or add another service') and a precondition that excludes first-time users. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when-not to call it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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