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 adds that the content is a set of setup steps, but it never says whether the guide is static or tailored to the user's existing setup, nor how it relates to record_onboarding_state, which is a meaningful behavioral ambiguity for an onboarding flow.

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 what the tool returns front-loaded before the usage cue. The only waste is mild repetition of 'onboarding' between the description and the second sentence, which could be tightened.

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-param read tool this is close to sufficient, but there is no output schema, so the description is the only place an agent could learn what shape the guide arrives in (ordered steps, markdown, prerequisites) and whether it varies per user. That gap keeps it at minimum-viable completeness.

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; baseline 4 applies. No parameter claims are made or needed.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it returns 'the steps that get the user's app sending telemetry to Telemetry Machine'. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from generic reads like get_schema or list_datasets, though it stops short of contrasting itself with the adjacent get_instrumentation_guide sibling.

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 clearly names the trigger conditions: 'when the user wants to set up, connect, get started with or continue onboarding'. That covers both first-time and resumed setup, which is helpful context. It offers no exclusions, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone whether get_instrumentation_guide is the better call for deep SDK-level work.

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