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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by focusing on diagnosis and returning data. It adds nontrivial behavioral context: the tool returns server-derived stage, a pitch, a checklist with statuses, and next_actions queue, and explicitly warns against a specific misuse. It doesn't contradict annotations, and the description adds substance beyond the annotation's minimal read-only hint.

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 yet packed: purpose, trigger scenarios, alternative approach ('Diagnose before prescribing') and a direct warning. Every sentence serves a function, and the most important info (diagnosis, warning) is front-loaded.

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?

Given no parameters, no output schema, and a readOnlyHint=true annotation, the description fully bridges the gap: it defines use cases, return fields, and the core rule (never welcome when producing). An agent can correctly invoke this without needing further explanation.

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?

Schema is empty (0 parameters) with 100% coverage by triviality, and the description explains that the tool requires nothing because it derives stage server-side. It adds meaning by explaining that no input is needed and what the tool infers (e.g., from list_projects emptiness), which is exactly what an agent needs to know when calling a parameterless tool.

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 definition states a specific purpose ('Diagnose where the operator is in their VarynForge journey and get a guided setup path'), identifies clear trigger conditions ('call when...'), and distinguishes from siblings by referencing list_projects and warns against using the welcome pitch when 'producing'. This is distinct from the other get_* tools in the sibling list.

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?

Explicitly asks 'call when' scenarios and an exclusion ('never run the welcome pitch on an operator whose stage says producing'). This gives precise when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance unlike most siblings.

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