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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, and the description adds non-obvious context: the result gates production safety knowledge and reports the caller's access level, which implies auth-dependent output. It says nothing about failure modes or result format, but for a read-only zero-param call the remaining gaps are minor.

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, zero filler, with the ordering directive front-loaded before the payoff. Every clause carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly summarizes the return payload in three items, which is enough to call the tool. It leaves the output format and the meaning of 'the open incident' (singular vs. list) unspecified, a small gap for a discovery tool.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond confirming it needs no input.

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 three concrete outputs (open incident, access level, production-safe tool list) rather than restating the name 'get_started', so an agent knows what it gets back. It does not use a crisp verb+resource phrasing and the resource is implicit, but it is clearly distinguishable from siblings like whoami or submit_diagnostics.

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?

'Call this first' is an explicit, unambiguous sequencing directive that tells the agent when to invoke it relative to every sibling. It does not name alternatives or when-not conditions, but for a zero-param bootstrap tool that would be redundant.

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