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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by specifying the exact format of the returned data (statuses, responsible parties, instructions, next_action) and the authentication caveat about not prompting for tokens, which is useful behavioral context beyond 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?

The description is a single dense paragraph that front-loads authentication requirements and then clearly enumerates the return content. Each clause contributes useful information without redundancy, though it could be slightly trimmed for maximum compactness while preserving all key details.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains the structure of the returned checklist (statuses, responsible parties, instructions, next_action). It also notes that the checklist is embedded in application_status, giving cross-reference for alternative access. This is complete for a read-only informational tool with a well-defined response shape.

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?

The schema covers the single token parameter with a description, but the tool description adds significant context: it explains that a Bearer web session from the in-page agent also works and explicitly instructs never to ask for a token when already authenticated. This goes beyond the schema's description, enhancing parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it returns the onboarding checklist with steps, statuses, and the next action. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that the same checklist is embedded in application_status, which sets it apart as the detailed checklist 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 provides explicit authentication guidance, including acceptable token types and the web session alternative, and warns against asking users for tokens when a session exists. It implies when to use this tool (to see the full checklist) and hints at an alternative (application_status for a lighter view), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling tools.

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