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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the payload must be shown verbatim, in the user's language, with <claim_url> substituted by the saved claim_url. That is presentation guidance the annotations cannot convey. It could go further on failure/edge behavior.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the return value, with the usage instruction parenthetically appended. Every clause carries information, though the parenthetical instruction could be split for easier scanning.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the burden of explaining the return value and how to present it, including the <claim_url> substitution. For a one-parameter read-only tool this is close to complete, missing only error or retry behavior.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single agent_token parameter is fully documented in the schema as coming from proxylang_start. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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 states a specific resource: it returns message_for_user, the final setup message, and enumerates its contents (site works, claim link, fitting Proxylang features). It is clearer than the tool name 'proxylang_next' alone, though it does not explicitly distinguish this from proxylang_status or proxylang_check beyond the 'end setup' framing.

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 phrase 'the message to end setup with' implies this is called at the end of onboarding, giving implicit timing. However, it never explicitly says when to call it versus proxylang_status or proxylang_check, and lists no prerequisites beyond token reuse.

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