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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool does (resolves screen, names agent, starts session) and that it returns wallet funding state. It doesn't mention error conditions or side effects beyond session creation, but for a simple announcement tool this is adequate. No contradictions with annotations (none provided).

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 a single paragraph with no wasted words. The most critical instruction ('Call this FIRST') is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes new information: what it does, what to provide, and what it returns. It is concise and well-structured.

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 only 3 parameters, all documented, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, the exact timing (first), the parameters to use, and the return value (wallet funding state). No additional information is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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% for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly instructing to use agent_name and message for the introduction, and it frames auth_token as conditional on the absence of an Authorization header. This goes beyond the schema's dry descriptions and helps the agent select the right parameters.

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 a specific purpose: it is the initialization tool that resolves a connection screen, names the agent in the dashboard, and starts a session. It explicitly says 'Call this FIRST, before any other Laso tool,' which distinguishes it from all sibling tools. The verb is clear and the resource is the session/connection state.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Call this FIRST' establishes when to use it, and it tells the agent to introduce itself with agent_name and message. It also notes that it doubles as a setup check, covering both primary and secondary use. No ambiguity about when to invoke it.

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