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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the call is free and requires no API key, which matters for an agent deciding whether it can invoke it during setup.

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?

A single dense but well front-loaded sentence with the key instruction ('Start here with a new user') up front. The parenthetical enumerations add useful specificity, though the sentence is packed enough that it reads more like a checklist than clean prose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be spelled out, yet the description still summarizes the payload. For a zero-param, read-only onboarding tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and understand the result.

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, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter guidance that does not exist.

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 concretely what the tool returns: a short set of onboarding questions (game, format, stakes, goal), a menu of PokerData capabilities mapped to tools, free-tier info, and how to file requests. It is clearly distinguishable from data-fetching siblings like get_config or list_datasets, though the verb itself ('Get started') is not a precise verb+resource.

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?

'Start here with a new user' gives clear context for when to invoke it, and no other sibling serves an onboarding role, so there is effectively no alternative to name. It stops short of explicitly saying when NOT to use it (e.g., for returning users who already know the flow).

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