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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description goes further by disclosing the return shape and thresholds like a knowledge base over 60,000 characters flagged in `attention`. It does not discuss authorization or failure behavior, though the schema's agent_id description already documents the 404/403 cases.

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, which is good, but the body is a long comma-chained list of return fields packed into essentially one sentence. Given there is no output schema the enumeration earns its place, but it could be restructured for scanability.

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 burden of explaining return values and does so thoroughly: enumerated stages, the five ordered steps, next.say, optional parts, attention items, live facts, and house rules. An agent knows what it will get back and how to act on it.

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 is exactly one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself spelling out the 404 agent_not_found and 403 agent_not_authorized conditions. The description adds nothing about agent_id, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concretely defines the resource — a setup-progress report for one agent — and enumerates its payload (stage, five steps, next.say, attention, house rules), which clearly separates it from get_agent (raw config) or get_agent_analytics. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

"Call it first when helping someone set up or improve an agent, and again after each change" gives a clear trigger and a re-invocation cadence. It stops short of naming alternatives or saying when NOT to use it (e.g., for reading raw agent settings use get_agent).

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