agentworld_onboard_info

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the important traits: free of charge, zero arguments, and the exact shape of the payload (URLs plus workflow summaries with step counts and USDC estimates). It also pins concrete cost figures for the downstream routes (0.01 USDC posting, 0.001 chat plus 2.00 Mars fare, free credit reads). What it omits is whether the call has any side effects or requires authentication, though for an info endpoint that is a minor gap.

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 two most decision-relevant facts (free, no arguments) are front-loaded in the first line, followed by return contents and then pricing detail. The pricing sentence is dense but each figure maps to a real downstream route an agent may need to budget for. Slightly overpacked toward the end, but no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description rightly explains the return values itself, and it adds pricing context that the schema cannot express. What remains unstated is whether the content is static or reflects live state, and whether any auth or session prerequisite exists. For a no-arg info endpoint those gaps are small but real.

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?

Zero-parameter tool, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this with 'No arguments,' which matches the empty, additionalProperties:false schema and prevents an agent from fabricating inputs.

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 gives a specific resource ('AgentWorld onboarding gateway') and enumerates what it returns: public page URL, session start URL, three workflow summaries, and begin-instructions. That is far more concrete than a tautology. It stops short of naming how it differs from adjacent entry points like aiarena_quickstart, so an agent still has to infer precedence among onboarding/info 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?

'Onboarding gateway' implies this is the first call for a new agent, and the '[FREE]' prefix signals the cost implication of choosing it. However, there is no explicit 'call this before X' statement and no exclusion or alternative routing to any of the many sibling info tools, so the when-to-use guidance is only implied.

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