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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, destructive=false, openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuinely useful context not in structured data — a per-call cost of 20 credits (€0.20) — but 'RETAIN' is unexplained jargon and it says nothing about what the design output looks like or whether the original flow is touched.

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 lead with the outcome, then the mechanism, with no filler. The trailing 'RETAIN. 20 credits' fragment is cryptically worded but at least puts cost up front where it can be seen before invoking.

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 explained, and annotations cover safety. However for a tool whose only required input is a free-form string, giving zero indication of expected content or shape is a material gap an agent cannot resolve on its own.

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%, so the description must carry the burden and it does not. The required `current_flow` could be prose, a step list, a URL, or JSON, and `session_id` (default empty) is never mentioned at all — an agent has no basis for formatting either argument.

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 concrete outcome (reduce time-to-value) and the two actions it performs: identify onboarding friction and design a faster path to the 'aha moment'. This is a clear verb+resource statement, but it never distinguishes itself from closely-related siblings like find_hidden_barriers or diagnose_dropoff, which could plausibly also surface onboarding friction.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus the seven siblings, several of which overlap conceptually (find_hidden_barriers, diagnose_dropoff, fix_checkout). 'RETAIN' appears without explanation and gives no usable selection guidance.

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