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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds useful scope (three specific no-install paths) but says nothing about what it returns — narrative steps versus links to templates — which is the main behavioral unknown for a guidance tool.

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 sentence with the purpose front-loaded and the three supported approaches parenthesized for quick scanning. No filler or restatement of the name.

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, read-only informational tool with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient. The only gap is the expected shape of the answer, which matters slightly given there is no output schema.

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 the schema baseline applies and there is no parameter meaning to compensate for. The description correctly implies a parameterless, call-and-read operation.

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 ("Explain") plus a specific resource ("how to start a gleanyard collection project") and enumerates the three approaches covered (template repo, Claude Code on the web, Codespaces). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_recipe, which an agent could plausibly confuse with this guidance tool.

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 phrase "without installing anything" gives a clear triggering condition: use this when the user wants to begin a project with no local setup. It stops short of stating when not to use it or pointing to get_recipe/project_status as alternatives once a project exists.

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