consumer_onboarding

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered structurally. The description adds genuine content context by enumerating what the guide covers (model discovery/generation, materials, pricing, ordering, delivery tracking), but says nothing about format, length, or whether the guide is static or personalized.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. The closing sentence ('Perfect for first-time users who want to manufacture a custom part') largely restates the 'users without a 3D printer' qualifier and could be dropped without loss.

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?

A zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema and no nesting is low complexity, and the description covers both the trigger audience and the topical shape of the return value. It stops short of describing the guide's structure or follow-on steps, but that is a minor gap at this complexity level.

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 and there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. Nothing in the description misdescribes inputs or implies an argument that does not exist.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the guided onboarding workflow') with an explicit audience qualifier ('users without a 3D printer') that an agent can match against a request. It is clear what the tool returns, though it never names a sibling such as get_started or design_advisor, so the agent must infer that this is the no-printer onboarding path versus other guidance tools.

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 phrase 'Perfect for first-time users who want to manufacture a custom part' plus 'without a 3D printer' gives an implied usage condition, but it is framed as praise rather than a rule. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many adjacent guidance tools (get_started, design_advisor, check_capability), so selection still requires inference.

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