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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's closing 'Changes nothing' is largely reinforcement rather than new information. It does add genuine value by disclosing the full set of facts returned, which is behavioral context not present in 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then a dense but well-earned enumeration of return contents, closed by the mutation guarantee. No filler or repetition.

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 carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so thoroughly by naming each returned fact. The only real gap is guidance on how this relates to the sibling verification-status 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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'business' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the 'omit to act as yourself' semantics. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (account/go-live status) and enumerates exactly what the response covers: live-payment eligibility, go-live progress, verification state, pricing audit, payout account, and next step. It is clear enough to distinguish from write tools, but it does not name or differentiate itself from the overlapping agenta_verify_status sibling.

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 phrase 'the single next step to take' implies this is an orientation/diagnostic call used to decide what to do next, which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use instruction and no routing away from the closely related agenta_verify_status or agenta_audit_show tools.

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