Crave Up NL onboarding checklist

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by showing the tool returns an orchestrated sequence (login → create org → connect .env → import menu → run) rather than performing those actions itself. This helps clarify the tool's informational nature, and it does not contradict the annotations.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the goal and uses a compact arrow-separated list for the steps. There is no filler, and every part contributes to understanding what the tool provides.

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?

With zero parameters, a rich set of safety annotations, and an output schema present, the description is complete for calling this tool. It tells the agent the tool returns an onboarding checklist, which is all that is needed to invoke it correctly.

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 zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies; no additional parameter explanation is necessary.

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 resource: a step-by-step onboarding flow from a restaurant repo to a live Crave-powered app, delivered as a checklist. It does not just restate the tool name and is distinguishable from related status tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings.

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 phrasing 'How to take a restaurant repo from zero to a live Crave-powered app' implies the tool is for retrieving the onboarding sequence, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this over alternatives such as get_onboarding_status or start_crave_auth. Usage context is present, but no exclusions or alternative routing are stated.

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