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

Goes far beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: 'Reads state only — never calls provider APIs' clarifies side-effect scope, and it discloses the 'all sections are always present' invariant, the gate=true blocking behavior, and the warning never to re-call a refused tool. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent must know and that annotations alone don't convey.

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?

Dense but every sentence earns its place: loop contract, priority ladder, gate semantics, empty-section meaning, pending-approvals caveat, sibling routing, and read-only note are all high-value. It loses one point because the whole contract is packed into a single run-on paragraph that would be easier to parse with structural breaks.

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 tool of this complexity — a 9-stage priority ladder, a loop contract, and an interaction protocol — the description is complete. It enumerates every section, defines the termination condition ('done'), explains the gate flag, and notes the output schema exists to handle return-value details. An agent has everything needed to drive the loop correctly.

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% and the only parameter (org_id) is fully documented in the schema itself, including guidance to normally omit it. The description adds nothing about parameters, but the baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the full burden.

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 verb+resource ('reports every queue... and next_step') with an unmistakable usage role ('THE loop driver'). It names its sibling (get_onboarding_status) explicitly and states what that sibling is still for, so no agent could confuse the two.

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?

Gives an explicit loop contract: call first, call after every action, do next_step, call again until next_step.section is 'done'. It also states the exclusion condition ('Supersedes get_onboarding_status, still available for the pure connect walk') and the gate=true waiting rule. Nothing is left to inference.

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