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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: it's a stub that persists nothing, returns specific statuses and flags, and instructs the agent not to open the onboarding link or submit data on the user's behalf. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot capture.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every clause adds value: stub status, return payload, and user responsibility. No fluff or repetition.

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 the simple schema and lack of output schema, the description fully explains return values (status enum, flags, next_step.url, pricing) and clarifies the manual onboarding step. This is complete for an MCP tool with one parameter.

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 coverage is 100% with the 'ico' parameter already described as 'Czech IČO — 7 or 8 digits.' The description adds no further parameter details; the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the burden and the description doesn't undercut or enrich it.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: starting onboarding for monitoring a Czech company by IČO. It uses a specific verb ('Start onboarding') and resource ('monitoring of one Czech company'), and distinguishes itself from sibling detection/report tools by focusing on the watch/onboarding flow.

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?

The context implies when to use (user wants to monitor a company), and sibling tools are clearly different (detection reports, ownership lookup). However, it lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, so it doesn't fully meet the 'explicit alternatives' bar.

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