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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful fallback-escalation path but says nothing about rate limits, auth requirements, or what the returned step entails, so it only modestly exceeds the annotation bar.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the primary purpose front-loaded before the fallback instruction. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, the description omits any mention of the authorization parameter and does not clarify what an 'onboarding step' represents, leaving meaningful gaps for a tool that gates an onboarding flow.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single 'authorization' parameter, so the schema provides no meaning. The description never mentions the parameter at all, leaving its format and expected value entirely undocumented; only the conventional name hints at its purpose.

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+resource: 'Return the next onboarding step,' which is clear and distinct from sibling tools like get_my_access or get_my_operation. It also names a sibling (start_inquiry) as the fallback path, aiding differentiation, though it doesn't clarify scope (per-user vs per-tenant) of the onboarding route.

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?

Provides an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it: 'If this doesn't answer your question, call start_inquiry... or request a call.' This is real routing guidance, but it only covers the failure case; there is no positive statement of when this tool should be preferred over the other get_* / start_* siblings.

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