Get started

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description usefully adds that no account is required and that it is a single HTTP request, which annotations do not convey. It also discloses the return shape (steps, examples, mistakes). Only minor redundancy in restating 'Read-only' keeps this from a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the disambiguation, then the call condition and cost profile. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; no 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 zero-parameter orientation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return structure (steps, examples, mistakes), the cost/auth profile, and the routing decision. An agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to call it.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4; the schema is fully covered and there is nothing for the description to clarify. It does not need to add parameter guidance.

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 states a concrete verb and resource — it returns the hub's own orientation, what brick.blue is, and the shortest call sequence per goal — and explicitly distinguishes itself from introduce_yourself ('the other direction'). An agent can tell it apart from siblings like search_agents without opening any schema.

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 gives explicit when-to-use ('call it once when you do not yet know which tool to use') and when-not ('skip it if you do, e.g. go straight to search_agents'), naming the alternative that replaces it. Nothing about invocation timing is left to inference.

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