Guided setup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'read-only' label adds no new information. It does not say whether it performs probing, what it inspects, whether it can be slow, or what state it depends on — all of which matter for a setup/onboarding tool.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than concise — there is no front-loaded statement of purpose, just a noun phrase that leaves the agent guessing.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining what comes back, yet 'setup steps with sibling readiness' gives no sense of shape, ordering, or how readiness is expressed. For an onboarding entry point that agents are likely to call first, this is too thin.

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; there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already conveys.

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 phrase 'Read-only setup steps with sibling readiness' restates the title 'Guided setup' without a verb or a clear statement of what the tool returns. 'Sibling readiness' is suggestive but ambiguous — it could mean readiness of sibling tools or readiness relative to them — and nothing distinguishes this from core.compatibility, core.access_status, core.health, or core.release_check.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite, and no reference to any alternative among the many readiness/status siblings. An agent must guess whether to call core.onboard, core.compatibility, or core.access_status first.

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