mrx_get_started

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's burden is lighter. It adds useful context by explicitly stating that no request is submitted, no case is created, and no human review is performed, which helps an agent understand this is purely informational. There is no contradiction with 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 two sentences, with the core action and object front-loaded and the clarifying side-effect exclusion in the second sentence. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

For a parameterless, read-only tool with rich annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and what it does not trigger. A minor gap is that 'source-linked next-step links' is not elaborated, but nothing essential to invoking this no-argument tool correctly appears to be missing.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The description provides the only relevant semantic context: the tool returns the current public homepage and its next-step links.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read MRX's current public homepage and its source-linked next-step links.' This clearly states what the tool does and adds a distinctive element beyond the tool name. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like mrx_read_page or mrx_search_guides, so it falls short of the top score.

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 tool name and the 'current public homepage' wording imply that this is an initial, informational read for getting started. However, the description never states when to choose this over mrx_read_page, mrx_search_guides, or mrx_status, and it provides no exclusionary conditions beyond saying it does not submit a request, create a case, or perform human review.

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