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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses that it creates/updates AgentOnboarding, returns state/guide/link, requires connections:manage scope, and has the invariant that it never marks human steps complete without evidence. This adds useful mutation and safety context, though it could say more about non-idempotent retry 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and return values, followed by a clear invariant and access constraints. Every sentence adds information relevant to calling or not calling the tool, with no filler.

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 zero-parameter, annotation-rich tool without an output schema, the description covers purpose, return contents, authorization requirements, side effects, and a key behavioral safeguard. That is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool and decide whether it is callable.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: creating or resuming an assisted configuration session for the extension/Airbnb, and returning current state, installation guide, and continuation link. It is clearly more than a tautology, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as get_onboarding_status or get_connection_status.

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?

It clearly indicates usage for starting or resuming assisted configuration and explicitly states the authorization constraint: 'INDISPONÍVEL nesta autorização' when scope is not granted. It does not name a concrete alternative tool or explain when to choose get_onboarding_status versus this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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