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

Annotations already establish readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful peptical, non-annotation detail: it enumerates exact milestones, notes co-founders who have not finished are listed, and clarifies they 'never block the filing.' It does not contradict any annotation.

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 description is concise and dense; its two sentences list useful milestones and behavioral nuances. The trailing 'Read-only' repeats an existing annotation but is not harmful enough to reduce the score further.

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 single-parameter, read-only, annotated tool with an output schema, the description covers the return contents well: milestone categories, state, descriptive sentences, accelerator-specific data, and co-founder treatment. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 sole parameter formationId already has full 100% schema description coverage as a 'UUID value wrapper,' so the description adds no extra semantic meaning for the parameter. It is simply not necessary for the description to explain it further.

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 clearly identifies the tool as returning 'a formation's progress timeline' with specific milestones, states, and per-milestone sentence descriptions. It is easily distinguished from the many formation_* siblings by the word 'timeline' and the explicit milestone list.

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?

The tool's purpose implies usage when a progress timeline is needed, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this over sibling tools like formation_get_formation or formation_get_formation_info. The description provides clear context but no direct when-not-to-use or alternative guidance.

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