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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuine value by decoding the domain semantics of the returned data — ai vs human track meaning, and the specific checklist steps — which an agent cannot get from 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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, ending on the action-oriented purpose. No filler, parenthetical meanings are compact and earn their place.

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 does the work of explaining what comes back, covering track and the five steps. It omits `dismissed_at` and `complete` from the enumerated fields, a minor gap given the tool is otherwise simple and single-parameter.

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% for the single optional `fields` parameter, so the schema already explains its purpose and the enum defines valid values. The description adds nothing about field selection syntax, 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 (Read) and resource (the setup checklist) and enumerates the exact contents returned: the track value and the five setup steps. However, it does not differentiate itself from nearby reads such as get_account_summary or get_business_profile, which an agent scanning the sibling list might consider alternatives.

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 closing sentence 'Use it to say what is left to set up' gives an implied usage context, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no alternatives named. The agent must infer that this tool supersedes per-item checks like get_business_profile for onboarding purposes.

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