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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description adds genuinely additive constraints: no profile writes, no sending, no monitoring, no live verification, and zero questions by default. That goes beyond the annotation set, though it omits what actually happens during the call or what state is returned.

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 short sentences with no padding, but the front-loaded sentence is abstract to the point of being hard to parse ("Restore known facts and plan useful work before asking") rather than stating the concrete action. Compact, but the density is obscurity rather than information.

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?

With no output schema, an enum-driven workflow selector, and 0% schema coverage, the description must do more. It never says what a call returns, what each workflow value launches, or how `profile_state` affects behavior, so an agent cannot confidently invoke it for anything but a blind initialize.

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 description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters (including a nested AssistanceContext object), so the description carries the burden. It only vaguely glosses `assistance_context` ("describes actual task requirements and client checks, without private answers") and says nothing about `workflow`, `locale`, or `profile_state`, leaving the most important parameter unexplained.

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 says it restores known facts and plans work at session start, hinting at a pre-question warm-up step, but the verb+resource pairing is abstract ("boardwork_start" never named) and the central concept of launching a workflow (the `workflow` enum with six values) is not mentioned at all. An agent can guess this is an initializer but cannot tell how it differs from siblings beyond being first.

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?

"...before asking" and "Defaults to zero questions" imply the timing (start of interaction, prior to interrogating the user), which is real usage guidance. However, no alternatives are named, no conditions for when-not-to-call are given, and nothing explains which `workflow` value to pick or whether a later call supersedes this one.

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