onboarding

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns instructions and imposes a one-time-per-conversation limit, implying a read-only, side-effect-free operation. This is sufficient for a simple tool, though it could have explicitly stated non-modifying behavior.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the key usage condition, and includes a critical behavioral constraint. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail. It is exceptionally concise and well-structured.

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 tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it states when to call, the constraint, and what it returns. No additional context is needed for the agent to invoke this tool correctly. The output schema covers return value details, so the description need not elaborate.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details, which is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to be called when onboarding has not been performed, and it returns instructions. It uses a specific condition ('if onboarding was not performed yet') and a clear resource ('instructions on how to create the onboarding information'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'check_onboarding_performed', which likely serves a related but distinct function.

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?

The description gives a clear condition for usage ('if onboarding was not performed yet') and an explicit constraint ('at most once per conversation'). It does not mention any alternative tools or explicitly instruct the agent to first verify onboarding status with a sibling tool, which slightly limits guidance, but the condition itself is a strong usage indicator.

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