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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety bar is low. The description still adds real value by disclosing the state vocabulary (done, in_progress, needs_owner, needs_action, unavailable), the one-next-action-per-step contract, and the fact that some actions are out-of-band owner tasks like paying, entering an EIN, or signing in to Facebook/Google — plus an explicit "contacts no one" reassurance.

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 before the detail, and no filler. The middle enumeration is long but every item identifies a distinct setup area, so it earns its place; only the final "Read-only; changes nothing and contacts no one" slightly overlaps the 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?

With an output schema present the return structure needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description only had to convey scope and semantics — which it does thoroughly. Minor gaps remain: nothing about behavior when setup is complete or when business_id is unknown, and no explicit contrast with get_setup_recovery_status or get_lsa_setup.

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 is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("The business to check."), so the schema carries the semantics. The description never mentions business_id or says anything about scope or validity, so it adds nothing beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 and resource ("Read where one business stands on setup") and then enumerates the exact areas covered: plan, phone number, texting registration, WhatsApp, alerts, mailbox, campaign sender. This enumeration distinguishes it from the many narrow siblings (get_text_registration, get_phone_system_status, get_business_verification) by making clear this is the aggregated view.

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 establishes clear context for use: this is the overview read that returns a per-step state plus a next action that points to the tool that moves it forward. That implicitly positions it as the triage entry point ahead of the per-area status tools, though it never names those alternatives or says when not to use it.

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