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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds little beyond that; 'No secrets' is the one extra claim but is ambiguous — it could mean the output excludes sensitive data or that callers must not supply secrets — and it never says whether the call is a prerequisite that fails later tools.

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 imperative 'Start here' front-loaded and zero filler. The slash-compressed 'access.role/state/next_action' is dense to the point of being slightly cryptic, which keeps it just under top marks.

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 tool with an output schema, the burden is light: the agent needs to know when to call it and roughly what comes back, and both are present. Remaining gaps (what 'state' values mean, whether it gates other calls) are modest given the output schema already documents the response.

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. The field references in the description (access.role, state, next_action) describe output, not inputs, and are complementary rather than redundant.

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 concrete resource it surfaces — 'access.role/state/next_action' — and positions itself as the entry point with 'Start here', which separates it from deeper siblings like research_get_plan or research_usage. The verb 'show' is weak and the tool is never explicitly called an access/context lookup, but the returned fields make the purpose recoverable.

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?

'Start here' plus 'before proposing analyses' gives an explicit ordering constraint: call this first, prior to analysis work. It stops short of naming any alternative or exclusion (e.g. when to skip it), so it is clear context without full routing.

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