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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'It never records or changes anything' largely restates that. It does add the return-format detail (statement begins with 'IZeat ·'), but then mixes in write-operation behavior ('store their answer ... with update_profile') that belongs to another tool, muddying the safety picture rather than clarifying it.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a wall of tangential orchestration instructions covering topics owned by other tools (find_recipes, period_summary, meal corrections). Much of this does not earn its place in a 0-parameter read tool's description.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description spends its length on unrelated workflow steps and even names sibling tools despite instructing 'never mention tool names.' For a simple zero-argument read step, the definition is over-stuffed with off-topic content while its own scope is diluted.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is empty at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly presents the call as argument-free ('get_setup_step {}'), adding no misleading 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?

The opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Reads the connected account and tells you the next onboarding step,' which is distinguishable from get_connected_account and get_profile. However, the description then sprawls into unrelated processes (day/period reviews, recipe finding, corrections) that blur what this specific tool does.

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?

It gives a clear trigger and a named alternative: 'Use it after get_connected_account when onboarding is not complete, or when the customer asks to resume setup.' The re-invocation loop after update_profile is also spelled out. The surrounding process instructions are noisy but the core routing guidance is explicit.

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