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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description discloses non-obvious behavior: no-arg calls return a step index, while step: N returns goal + method + verification, and each step composes other nifra_* tools. It doesn't mention any bounds on step count or error behavior for an out-of-range step.

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 ordered-sequence claim and the sibling differentiation are front-loaded in the first clause, and each subsequent sentence adds routing or call-shape information. It is dense, with the parenthetical step arrow-chain being somewhat heavy, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns — and it does, covering both the no-arg index and the per-step payload (goal, how to do it, how to verify). For a single-optional-param, read-only tool, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 100% for the single `step` parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by defining the two distinct modes (omitted = index, provided = expanded step) and specifying exactly what content each yields, which is real semantic value the schema's 'expand' wording does not carry.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('walk the guided path to build a nifra app') and immediately pins down its shape: an ORDERED sequence of named steps. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming nifra_docs and nifra_example and characterizing them as 'random-access search', so the agent can pick the right tool without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('scaffolding a new app or learning nifra's flow') and a clear when-not via the contrast with nifra_docs/nifra_example. The call patterns (no args vs step: N) are also spelled out, leaving nothing to inference.

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