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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the trailing 'Read-only' is redundant. What the description does add beyond the structured fields is the shape of the returned state, including the presence of ordered nextSteps, which tells the agent the response is directional and should drive the next action.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the return contents, then the trigger condition, then the safety tag. No filler, no restatement of the title, and every clause carries either routing or payload information.

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?

There is no output schema, so describing the returned state is mandatory here and the description does it item by item, including ordered nextSteps. With zero parameters and rich annotations, nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is left out.

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 there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly makes no claims about inputs and instead spends its words on output semantics.

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?

A specific verb ('Returns') plus a precise resource ('the caller's LovedOne setup state'), followed by an enumeration of exactly what is included: workspace existence, loved ones and @lovedone.app inbox addresses, member counts, and ordered nextSteps. That is enough to separate it from list_loved_ones or list_family_members, which return raw collections rather than onboarding state.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger and sequencing rule: 'Call this first whenever a user wants to set up, resume, or check on LovedOne.' That covers both the when and its position in the workflow. It does not name a sibling as the alternative for the non-onboarding cases (e.g. list_loved_ones for plain listing), so it stops just short of full when/when-not routing.

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