Onboarding

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds context about the one-time-per-conversation constraint and that it returns instructions, which are useful behavioral details beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't describe error handling or what happens if called multiple times.

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 highly concise and well-structured with two sentences: the first states when to call it, and the second specifies the call frequency and return value. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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 0 parameters, annotations covering safety, and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, and behavioral constraints. However, it could briefly mention what the instructions entail or link to sibling tools for more context, but the output schema likely handles return values.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on usage context. A baseline of 4 is applied since there are no parameters to document.

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's purpose: to be called when onboarding hasn't been performed yet, and it returns instructions for creating onboarding information. It specifies the verb 'call' and the resource 'onboarding', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_onboarding_performed' or 'initial_instructions' beyond the conditional trigger.

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 provides explicit usage guidelines: 'Call this tool if onboarding was not performed yet' and 'You will call this tool at most once per conversation.' This clearly defines when to use it (onboarding not done) and includes a usage constraint (once per conversation), though it doesn't name specific alternatives among siblings.

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