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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context by disclosing the return shape (a menu of questions mapped to answering tools) and the routing behavior, though it says nothing about output size, pagination, or how the menu is structured beyond 'mapped to tool name'.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the call triggers, then the return value, then the sibling routing. No filler; each sentence carries distinct information.

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 appropriately compensates by explaining what the tool returns and how the result is organized. For a zero-required-parameter routing tool, nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100% and the single optional 'context' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the note that it never changes the answer. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 function — an onboarding/router tool that returns a menu of real questions mapped to the tool names that answer them — and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_partnership_options as the alternate route. An agent can tell exactly what this tool is for without opening the 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 triggers are enumerated (greeting, hello, connectivity/liveness test, 'what can you do', any too-general message), and an explicit exclusion routes ELC membership prospects to get_partnership_options. This is close to ideal when/when-not guidance.

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