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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds domain-specific behavioral context: accounting providers supply company settings automatically, while Google Sheets and CSV/manual workspaces may require Company & reporting to be completed. This enriches understanding beyond 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 three sentences: the first front-loads the purpose, the second explains a specific output, and the third clarifies the distinction between workspace types. It is appropriately sized and has no obvious filler, though the repetition of 'Company & reporting' could be tightened slightly.

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 and annotations covering safety, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the purpose and the key logical distinction between workspace types. It could be more complete by explicitly stating that the tool returns onboarding completeness, but the schema description already supplies that.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 according to the scoring rules. The schema description already states 'No inputs,' and the description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns setup state for accounting, Google Sheets, and CSV/manual workspaces.' This is clear and distinct from the financial-focused sibling tools, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling to fully earn a 5.

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 implies usage by explaining what the tool returns and the condition around Company & reporting, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to call it versus alternatives. The context is implied rather than stated.

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