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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context: it routes the caller's message to a fitting tool or returns the full menu, and it explicitly states that the message is passed as `context`. This explains expected behavior beyond the 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with 'START HERE', immediately signaling the tool's role. Every sentence adds useful information: when to use it, a special-case caller type, and how the context parameter is used. There is no wasted wording.

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?

This is a simple tool with one optional parameter, an existing output schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotency. The description fully covers invocation intent, routing behavior, and the fallback to the menu, so nothing critical is missing for correct use.

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 the `context` parameter well. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the context value determines routing behavior and that there is 'no wrong value', reinforcing the low-stakes, flexible nature of the parameter.

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 clear purpose: it is the entry point for greetings, liveness tests, 'what can you do' queries, and overly general questions, routing them to the right tool or returning the menu. This distinguishes it from the specific sibling tools, which are all targeted assessment or analysis tools.

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 explicitly lists when to use this tool: for greetings, connectivity/liveness checks, general capability questions, or anything too unspecific to match a dedicated tool. It also adds a concrete rule: use it when the caller is a person rather than a company, and points to the ELC membership messaging.

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