consumer_onboarding

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes a retrieval operation (returns a guide) with no mention of side effects, state changes, or prerequisites. While the behavior is implied to be safe and non-destructive, the description lacks explicit disclosure about authentication requirements or potential impacts.

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 concise, with three well-structured sentences. The first sentence immediately conveys the primary purpose, the second lists key contents, and the third provides context. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the returned guide's scope. However, it omits any mention of prerequisites (e.g., user account) or post-action expectations, leaving minor gaps for a first-time user.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information, but it also does not add any extra semantic context beyond the schema. Baseline 3 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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Get the guided onboarding workflow for users without a 3D printer,' specifying the target audience and the content of the guide (model discovery, material recommendations, etc.). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_started' or other onboarding tools by focusing on users without a 3D printer.

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 indicates the tool is 'Perfect for first-time users who want to manufacture a custom part,' providing clear use context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, leaving some ambiguity about scenarios where other tools might be more appropriate.

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