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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing exactly what comes back — including transient blockers and a routing target ('next tool name') — which matters because no output schema exists. It omits whether the response changes shape once onboarding is finished or whether auth is required first.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the most important field (current step) before the supporting ones. The seven-item list is dense but every element is a distinct, actionable return field rather than filler. Minor cost: the enumeration reads as a payload dump rather than a purpose statement.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers the return payload thoroughly, which is the main completeness burden. What is missing is the operational frame: no guidance on call sequencing, on the terminal state when setup is done, or on the meaning of the /connect fallback URL — an agent knows what it gets but not when or why to ask for 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-param tool applies. The description instead spends its words on the return contract, which is the only semantic surface available here.

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 specific verb ('Returns') and a specific resource (onboarding/setup status), then enumerates the payload: current step, completed items, blockers, next tool name, instruction text, link, and /connect fallback. That distinguishes it cleanly from every sibling, none of which touch onboarding. It falls short of 5 only because the enumeration of return fields crowds out a crisp one-line statement of purpose.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of 'current onboarding step' and 'the next tool name' hints this is the entry point that routes an agent to other tools, but the description never says when to call it, whether to call it first, or what to do if onboarding is already complete. An agent must infer the sequencing itself.

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