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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description reinforces it with 'takes no arguments and changes nothing.' It adds real value by exposing the resource URI pattern bridge://guides/decisions/<area>, which is not derivable from annotations or the empty schema.

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?

Front-loaded with 'Start here.' and every clause carries routing or content information. The single long em-dash sentence is dense and slightly run-on, and the get_integration_guide cross-reference appears twice, costing a little efficiency.

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 parameters, no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description fully specifies the return content (the map, per-area question, decision guide path) and the follow-up calls. Nothing an agent needs in order to call and act on it is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description sensibly confirms 'takes no arguments' rather than leaving the agent to infer it. No further parameter meaning is possible or needed.

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 exactly what the tool returns — an orientation map of Bridge's areas (login, teams, roles, payments, feature control, branding, go-live) with the follow-up question and decision guide for each. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_integration_guide (same content as topic=orientation) and routes the agent onward to get_app and get_setup_status.

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?

Gives three concrete triggers — new to Bridge, developer asks what Bridge can do, or before choosing a setup path — and adds a sequencing rule ('Then read the app as it is today with get_app and get_setup_status'). It also names the correct alternative (get_integration_guide topic=fit-together) before setting up flags, roles, plans or limits.

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