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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, and 'Changes nothing' largely restates that safety profile. However, with no output schema, the enumeration of the exact response fields adds genuinely useful behavioral context about what the call surfaces.

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?

Front-loaded with a short overview phrase and 'Start here' imperative, then a compact field list. Every sentence contributes, though the field enumeration is slightly list-like rather than tight prose.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back and does so comprehensively. Annotations cover the safety profile and the schema fully documents the lone parameter, leaving nothing an agent needs 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single optional 'business' parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantics about acting on behalf of a business versus acting as oneself.

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 clear verb+resource ('Account and go-live overview') and enumerates exactly what the call returns (live-payment capability, go-live progress, verification state, pricing audit state, payout connection, next step). 'Start here' carves out a distinct entry-point role relative to siblings like agenta_verify_status.

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?

'Start here' gives clear first-call context, telling the agent to use this before drilling into more specific tools. It does not name any alternative (e.g., agenta_verify_status) or state exclusions, so it falls short of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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