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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it branches based on whether the user is a signed-in approved accountant, and it describes the two distinct return shapes. It also conveys that this is an entry point rather than a data-fetching endpoint, which is useful for the agent's expectations.

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 compact but information-dense, with the core instruction front-loaded. Every clause earns its place: when to call, what not to do, what it returns for each audience, and what to call next. No filler or repetition of annotations.

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 zero-argument tool with an output schema, the description covers everything the agent needs: the triggering conditions, the two possible response types, and the follow-up action. The routing to `start` ties this tool into the broader workflow, making it complete in context.

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 zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly emphasizes that it takes no arguments ('No-argument front door').

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 states a specific purpose: a no-argument front door that returns orientation or scoping questions. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming `list_jurisdictions` as something not to call and `start` as the follow-up. The verb 'call this FIRST' makes the tool's role unambiguous.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance with example user phrasings, and equally explicit when-not-to-use guidance ('do NOT answer such questions by listing your tools or calling list_jurisdictions'). It also tells the agent exactly what to do next: 'Once you have an intent, call `start(intent, jurisdiction)`.' This leaves no ambiguity about routing.

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