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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the target app may still be unpublished, a well-known file is returned and must be added, and publishing precedes the follow-up call. It does not address permissions or authorization requirements beyond the flag param, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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 tight sentences that lead with the purpose and then lay out the required sequence of actions. Nothing is wasted or redundant.

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 stateful onboarding-start tool with annotations covering idempotency and safety, the two-step workflow narration gives enough context to call it correctly. The only gap is that the returned well-known file's format is unknowable pre-call in the absence of an 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?

Schema coverage is 67%, and the schema itself documents idempotency_key and authorization_confirmed. The description names no parameter directly, so it adds no syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema already provides — baseline 3.

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 ('Creates an account-bound verification challenge') and implicitly distinguishes itself from complete_app_onboarding by positioning itself as the first step of the sequence. An agent can tell what this tool does and where it sits in the workflow.

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?

Describes the workflow context ('the app may still be unpublished; add the returned well-known file, publish through Lovable, then call complete_app_onboarding'), which clarifies when this tool is the right entry point. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or an alternative for apps that are already published, so it is not a full 5.

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