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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The one added behavior in the description, 'Unreadable sources are reported as unknown', is genuinely useful and not derivable from annotations. Beyond that, the text just restates the title, so it adds little further behavioral context.

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?

Only two sentences, so it is not bloated, but the first sentence is a long comma-separated enumeration that duplicates the title verbatim, which wastes space. The one novel sentence ('Unreadable sources are reported as unknown') is buried at the end rather than front-loaded.

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, and the enumerated step names do help an agent interpret the response. However, the tool returns per-vendor-channel state without any note on shape or how per-channel entries are presented, and the sole parameter is unexplained, leaving a small but real gap.

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 0% for the single required 'company' UUID parameter, so the description carries the full burden and says nothing about it, not even that it selects which company's setup status is returned. With only one parameter the gap is small in absolute terms, but the description does not compensate at all.

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 resource ('live status of each step') and precisely enumerates the onboarding steps being reported, so an agent knows exactly what is returned. It never distinguishes from the close sibling summer_company_setup_status, which reports broader setup state, leaving that differentiation to inference.

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 no conditions for when to call this versus alternatives such as summer_company_setup_status, summer_teammates_list, or summer_slack_identity_read. It also omits any prerequisite context, so an agent must guess the appropriate moment to use it.

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