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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing what the payload contains (three distinct acquisition methods, including an agent sign-in path and PKCE flow), but says nothing about whether the output is static reference text or account-specific, nor about format.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the enumerated content. No filler, though the 'How a person or an agent obtains...' framing is slightly indirect compared to a leading verb like 'Returns instructions for...'.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema lookup tool with annotations already covering safety, the description tells the agent everything needed to decide to call it: the resource and the three paths covered. The remaining gap is that an agent cannot tell from the description how this differs in scope from get_setup_instructions.

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, which is the baseline-4 case: there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The absence of inputs is consistent with a pure documentation-retrieval tool.

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 the concrete resource (a Kourier API key) and the exact content returned (three acquisition paths: dashboard sign-up, agent sign-in via auth.md, OAuth with PKCE). It is clearly about getting instructions rather than performing onboarding or setup, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_setup_instructions.

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: an agent can infer it should call this when it needs to acquire an API key, and the mention of auth.md and OAuth hints at the agent-facing paths. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus get_setup_instructions or complete_onboarding, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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