start-here

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It mentions that the tool covers 'three parts, the CleanRead shape, the three outcomes, and the teacher-not-butler boundary,' but it does not disclose what the tool actually does (e.g., returns a document, renders a guide) or any side effects. This leaves behavioral aspects unclear.

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 exceptionally concise, using two sentences to convey the tool's purpose and key topics. It is front-loaded with the key term 'Orientation' and wastes no words. Every sentence adds value.

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 has no parameters and a simple purpose, the description is largely complete. It lists the main topics and implies the tool provides an overview. However, it lacks an explicit statement of what the tool returns (text, message, etc.), and there is no output schema to fill the gap. Still, for an orientation tool, it adequately sets expectations.

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 the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by specifying the content of the orientation (three parts, CleanRead shape, etc.), which is helpful context beyond the empty schema.

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 it is an 'Orientation for MAP' and explicitly says 'Start here,' indicating it serves as an introductory overview. While it doesn't specify a precise verb like 'returns' or 'displays,' the purpose is well-understood from context and distinguishes it from the specific functional sibling tools like 'decode-merchant' or 'get-catalog.'

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 implicitly suggests using this tool first ('Start here'), but it does not explicitly state when to use it, when not to use it, or mention alternatives. It lacks explicit guidance for the agent to determine context, relying on the phrase 'Start here' to imply initial usage.

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