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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavior disclosure. It notes the tool is 'Free' and that 'Keys never touch this server — the kit carries a placeholder,' which is critical security context. It does not describe side effects or return format, but for a simple onboarding-kit generator the disclosed traits are adequate.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The marketing touch ('give your OTHER agents this memory too') adds a little noise but doesn't detract much. It fits in a short paragraph with no redundant repetition of the schema.

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?

For a tool with two parameters (one enum, one optional) and no output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: what it emits, the target vendors, the placeholder nature, and the free cost. It does not specify exact output format or error conditions, but these are minor for such a simple 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining that 'address' is for prefilling funding links and the AGENTS.md mail pointer, and that the kit is for another vendor. This goes beyond the bare schema and clarifies intent.

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 uses a specific verb ('emits') and resource ('onboarding kit') and enumerates the target vendors, making it clear what the tool does. It differentiates from siblings by its cross-vendor onboarding purpose, distinct from ack/capabilities/read/etc.

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 description explains when to use it—to give other agents on different vendors shared memory—and how to use it (hand the kit to the operator). It implies the cross-vendor context but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like locker_send or locker_register_key. A clear 'use this when...' statement would improve it.

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