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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the output type (guidance, health check, prompt) and the absence of prerequisites, which is beyond what annotations state.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the prerequisite note is a single additional clause. Every word earns its place.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is essentially complete. It states what the tool returns, what it does not require, and implies the parameter's role. Minor omissions like error conditions or 'Other' meaning are not critical here.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'client-specific', which ties to the client parameter, but does not explicitly explain the enum values or that the parameter is optional (though optionality is in the schema). The meaning is inferable from the enum names, so partial compensation is present.

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 uses a specific verb ('get') and names three concrete outputs (connection guidance, health check, first prompt). It also clarifies scope by stating what is not required. This clearly distinguishes it from the analysis-oriented sibling 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 implies this is the entry point ('get started') and explicitly notes that no account, workspace, or upload is needed, signaling it is safe to call early. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the unique purpose is evident.

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