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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the trailing 'Read only.' simply repeats structured data. The description adds that the content is an onboarding/authentication walkthrough, but says nothing about what the response contains (steps, links, sign-in URL) or whether it triggers any connection step itself.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence, 'Read only.', is wasted space because it duplicates readOnlyHint, which keeps it from a 5.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is close to complete, but the agent still lacks guidance on when to call it (e.g., when a user asks how to sign in or connect) and what kind of content it returns. Given no output schema exists, a brief note on the returned instructions would have closed the gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. The description correctly indicates this is a no-argument content tool rather than an action requiring input.

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 names a specific resource - the instructions for adding Levered to the host app so a person can sign in - which is more than a restatement of the title. It does not differentiate against the sibling 'about_levered', so an agent cannot be fully certain which to pick for a question about the product versus a question about setup.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'so the person can sign in and ask Levered for work' suggests invoking this when a user needs authentication or onboarding help. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no routing against about_levered or free_analysis.

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