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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the behavior is identical to ucode_render_home and that the result is a product summary and sign-in card, which is useful but not extensive. No contradiction with the annotations.

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 zero unnecessary words. The key decision signal ('Prefer ucode_render_home on first message') is front-loaded in the second sentence and the duplication is stated first.

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 parameterless, read-only alias with an output schema, this description is nearly complete. It clearly identifies the sibling and the preferred alternative; the only minor gap is not stating a positive scenario for calling ucode_welcome itself, but that is acceptable for an alias.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document beyond the empty schema. The schema coverage is 100%, and a parameterless tool earns the baseline of 4.

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 identifies the tool as identical to ucode_render_home and summarizes its content as a product summary plus sign-in card. It does not state a standalone verb like 'renders', but the sibling reference and content summary make the purpose clear enough.

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?

It explicitly says to prefer ucode_render_home on the first message, which gives a clear when-not-to-use signal and names the alternative. It does not specify when ucode_welcome itself should be used, but that is expected for a duplicate/alias-style tool.

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