Start here

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses conditional behavior (no engagement vs engagement), the output format (a single screen), and the effect of passing a goal. It does not explicitly mention side effects or auth, but the described behavior strongly implies a non-destructive summary tool, which is adequate for this role.

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 bilingual description is compact and efficient. The first sentence front-loads the entry-point role and the core conditional behavior, followed by the goal hint and a direct usage instruction. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.

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 orientation tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is complete enough: it tells the agent what to expect in both engagement states, how the optional goal affects the result, and when to call it. It lacks an explicit statement of return structure or error behavior, but these are not critical for an entry point that returns a screen.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining that passing a goal 'gives a tailored read', which clarifies the behavioral effect of the optional parameter. It doesn't add anything about lang, but that parameter's schema description is already sufficient.

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 identifies the tool as the server's entry point, with a specific verb ('returns') and resource, and explains its conditional output: three things to settle first if no engagement, or current status and three weekly tasks if an engagement exists. It distinguishes itself from the many sibling tools by its role as the initial call and its high-level, orientation-focused purpose.

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 explicitly states '迷ったら最初にこれを呼ぶ / Call this first when unsure', giving a clear condition for use. It does not name alternatives or say when not to use it, but for an entry point the first-call guidance is strong contextual direction that helps an agent decide when to invoke it.

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