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

Annotations already establish readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: the response is pre-filled with "this app's real values (so there is nothing to fill in)", includes full docs text, and tells how to verify the step. What is missing is any caveat about prerequisites or failure modes, but this is a read-only retrieval tool where that matters less.

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 payload description comes first and the usage trigger second, which is the right front-loading. It is one dense paragraph with no filler, though the step list at the end partially repeats the enum and could have been trimmed.

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 one enum parameter, no output schema, and complete annotation coverage, this description supplies exactly what is needed: what comes back (instructions, pre-filled values, docs text, verification) and when to call it. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is absent.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the enum already constrains the value, so baseline would be 3. The description adds genuine meaning by listing the steps in their canonical order (install, connect, events, attribution, errors, performance), which tells the agent the sequence and matches the same six values as the enum.

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?

"What to do for one of Fictura's six setup steps" gives a specific resource and payload (instructions, real values, docs text, verification), and the trailing list names the six steps. It never names a sibling such as get_setup_status or get_app_setup, so the boundary with those tools is left for the agent to infer.

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 this when a person pastes a setup prompt, and follow what it returns rather than recalling the SDK from memory" is a concrete trigger plus an explicit instruction on how to use the result. There is no when-not guidance and no named alternative for cases where only status (not instructions) is wanted.

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