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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states it returns steps but does not disclose any behavioral traits like idempotency, potential side effects, or output format. For a simple informational tool this is minimally acceptable but lacks depth.

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?

One sentence with clear front-loading. It is appropriately sized for a tool that has no parameters. Could be slightly improved by adding a brief note on output format, but overall efficient.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete enough. It states what the tool returns (steps) and the starting point (agents). No major omissions for an informational 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?

There are no parameters, and the schema is fully covered (empty). The description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not detract.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('steps to start using CHP') and includes a parenthetical clarifying scope ('begin with agents'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like 'define', 'explain', and 'faq' which cover different aspects.

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 implies usage when a user wants procedural steps for adoption, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'explain' for general explanations, 'faq' for common questions). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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