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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the description's added value is the access profile ('No key, no email, nothing asked') and the human-gate framing ('Payment stays human'). The closing two sentences about a hosted invoice link are ambiguous in subject — it is unclear whether get_discovery itself returns that link or whether this describes the server's order flow — which slightly blurs rather than sharpens 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?

Front-loaded with the imperative 'Start here' and then a tight inventory of what one call returns; the alternative-routing sentence is dense but purposeful. The final two sentences about payment and hosted invoices are tangential to a read-only discovery tool and dilute the otherwise sharp focus.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the exact contents of the orientation payload. Combined with the auth profile, the sibling routing, and the intent-parameter behavior, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single optional intent parameter is already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining the echo-back behavior and the conditional side effect ('a quantity headline when it names a disc count'), which tells the agent why passing intent is worthwhile.

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 verb and resource ('Start here. One call orients a cold agent') and explicitly enumerates the payload: introduction, product blurb, shape choice, pricing tiers, artwork spec summary, and capability list. It also names the siblings it is not (get_product, get_artwork_spec, get_order_questions), so an agent can separate the onboarding entry point from the focused lookups without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit routing: 'Call this first when an agent is new to the server', with each alternative paired to its condition ('get_product for product facts alone', 'get_artwork_spec when a shape is chosen and artwork comes next', 'get_order_questions only with a key in hand'). Both the when-to-use and the when-to-use-instead cases are covered.

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