Onboarding

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description aligns with by implying a safe, informational operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies that the tool is for one-time use per conversation and returns instructions, which are behavioral traits not covered by annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of only two sentences that efficiently convey key information: when to call the tool and what it returns. Every sentence earns its place by addressing critical aspects without any redundant or vague language.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, read-only, non-destructive) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, and behavioral context effectively. However, it could slightly enhance completeness by hinting at the output format or linking to sibling tools, but this is minor.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. With no parameters, the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. It appropriately focuses on usage and behavior, so a baseline score of 4 is justified as it compensates well for the lack of parameters by providing clear context.

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: it returns instructions on how to create onboarding information. It specifies a verb ('returns instructions') and resource ('onboarding information'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_onboarding_performed' or 'initial_instructions', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides explicit usage guidelines: 'Call this tool if onboarding was not performed yet' and 'You will call this tool at most once per conversation.' This clearly defines when to use it (when onboarding is incomplete) and includes a frequency constraint, which is helpful for agent decision-making without mentioning alternatives.

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