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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safe, non-mutating nature. The description adds the valuable detail 'No model or network call,' which goes beyond the annotations to clarify that invoking this tool incurs no external side effects or dependencies. This extra context helps an agent reason about operational cost and reliability, though it does not describe the return format (e.g., plain text vs. structured output), which would be useful but is somewhat expected for a guide.

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: two sentences that front-load the key directive ('Start here') followed by a precise list of guide contents. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or padding. The structure is ideal for quick agent scanning.

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 read-only guide tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies what the guide contains (workflow, handoff fields, data boundaries, unsupported actions) and declares the absence of model/network calls. An agent has everything it needs to decide to call this tool and know what to expect.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, and the schema reflects this with an empty properties object. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate because there are no parameters to explain. The description correctly omits any parameter details, so no gap exists.

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 the tool's purpose: it is a guide that explains WorkspaceAlberta's workflow, handoff fields, data boundaries, and unsupported actions. The verb is implied ('start here'), the resource is explicit (the WorkspaceAlberta guide), and it is clearly distinct from sibling tools that perform searches or retrievals. No ambiguity.

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 says 'Start here when connecting an agent,' which provides direct, actionable guidance on when to invoke this tool. It also sets expectations for what the guide covers, making it clear that it is the entry point for onboarding rather than a domain operation. No alternatives are needed because the tool is uniquely positioned as a guide.

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