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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: the response branch depends on sign-in/approval status, yielding a personal briefing instead of the generic scoping questions. It stops short of describing error or unauthenticated 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?

Three sentences with no filler: trigger condition first, arity second, return content and hand-off to `start` last. The routing information is front-loaded where an agent will read it.

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 values need not be restated, yet the description still summarizes the two possible response shapes. Combined with the explicit trigger, the next-step routing to `start`, and annotation-covered safety, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description confirms 'Takes no arguments', which is consistent with the empty schema and prevents an agent from hunting for hidden inputs.

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 exactly what the tool returns — the two scoping questions plus available intents and jurisdictions, or a personalized `orientation` briefing for signed-in approved accountants. It is a specific verb+resource statement that an agent can distinguish from the sibling `start` without opening any schema.

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 gives explicit trigger phrases ('what can you do?', 'how can you help me?', 'where do I start?') and names the alternative plus the condition that selects it: 'Once there is a question, call `start`.' Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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