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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds real behavioral context by disclosing the return payload shape and the iterate-and-recheck cadence. It stops short of stating edge cases such as what 'skipped' means operationally or whether nextStep can be null, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Effectively one long sentence, but it is front-loaded with the core purpose and every clause adds non-redundant information (state values, detail semantics, tool vs url, call ordering). Dense rather than wasteful, though it could be broken into two sentences for readability.

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 carries the full burden of describing the result and does so field-by-field, while also covering sequencing and the dashboard alternative. An agent has everything needed to call this first and act on the response.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate on the input side, and it correctly does not invent parameter guidance.

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 precise verb and resource ('Check how far the workspace is from Aide answering its customers') and enumerates the exact states returned (live, nextStep, per-step status/detail/tool/url). This is unmistakably the onboarding-progress reader and cannot be confused with siblings like get_agent or analytics_summary.

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?

Explicitly says when to call it ('first when the workspace is new or not live'), how to proceed ('do the steps in order, past any that waits on an import or the user'), and to re-call 'after each' step. It also resolves the dashboard-vs-tool choice ('prefer the tool'), giving a real alternative with a selection rule.

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