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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the need to ask the user's background and return a path with documentation links. However, it does not specify the exact format of the response (e.g., whether it returns a list of links or a curated message) or any behavioral constraints like rate limits or required permissions. This is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 three sentences long and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage guidelines, and parameter instructions. While it is slightly verbose, the information density is high and no words are wasted.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete. It covers the purpose, when to use, how to use (including the interaction pattern of asking background), and what to exclude. No additional information is needed for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter 'background' that has enumerated values. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the parameter represents the developer's primary goal and instructs the agent to ask the user to pick one before proceeding. This guidance is crucial for correct tool invocation.

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 provides personalized onboarding for building on Celestia, with specific examples like running a node, posting a blob, or deploying a rollup. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly recommending it over the Celestia search tool for getting-started questions.

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 states when to use this tool ('ALWAYS use this when a developer asks how to get started or build ON CELESTIA') and when not to ('NOT for getting started with non-Celestia frameworks'). It also provides a specific instruction to ask the user about their background first, and directs to defer to general tools for off-topic queries.

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