Air onboarding

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context by stating 'Read-only', clarifying that only non-secret data is involved, and specifying the storage location (~/.delx-wellness/profile.json), which goes beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the core purpose ('Returns the 11-question onboarding flow') and immediately explaining usage, data sensitivity, and storage. Every clause adds value with no redundant or filler 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 annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the schema covers all parameters, the description provides enough context for an agent to decide to call and invoke correctly. It explains the flow's role, data storage, and usage intent. The absence of an output schema is acceptable since the description already states the flow is an 11-question set.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (locale, privacy_mode) already fully documented via enums and descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context for these parameters beyond what is already present, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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 returns an 11-question onboarding flow for the shared Delx Wellness profile, using a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('onboarding flow'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like air_profile_get and air_profile_update by focusing on the flow rather than the profile itself.

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 explicitly says 'The agent should ask these questions next', providing a direct usage context for personalizing responses. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools such as air_profile_get for retrieving existing profile data, stopping short of full exclusion guidance.

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