Things to try in this demo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. 'List' signals a non-mutating read operation and 'Takes no arguments' confirms the call shape; the enumerated policy topics tell the agent what kind of content to expect. It doesn't state auth requirements or output formatting, but for a no-argument scenario listing these are minor omissions.

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 front-load the action, then give the key decision types, the no-argument contract, and the audience guidance. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant padding.

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 simple zero-parameter tool with no output schema, this is complete: it says what is returned, what topics are covered, and when to start. There is no missing input/output information that would prevent a correct call.

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 schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so baseline is 4. The description reinforces this with 'Takes no arguments', which prevents an agent from inventing parameters. No parameter-level detail is needed.

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 action ('List concrete things to try') and the resource ('here', i.e. the demo scenarios), and enumerates the specific policy topics covered, so an agent can tell what the tool returns. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like hr__start_here, though its content is distinct.

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?

'Start here if you are new' is an explicit usage context, and 'Takes no arguments' tells the agent no parameters are needed. It doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but for a demo entry point that is a clear enough trigger.

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