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 bar is low. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it inspects live account data (linked accounts, audit history, key events, conversion actions, site tags/issues, sitemaps, campaigns) and clarifies the read-only workflow by noting the next step's own tools preview every change.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the example utterances are useful rather than filler. The long parenthetical enumerating checked resources is dense but each item earns its place by conveying scope; overall tight with minimal waste.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return, and it does: the five phases plus the single recommended next step with its tools. Combined with the read-only clarification, an agent has enough to invoke and understand results, though it doesn't cover pagination or error behavior.

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 100% for the single 'client' parameter, which already documents 'Client name from list_clients'. The description adds no further parameter guidance beyond the example phrase 'run Acme Fence'. Per the coverage rule, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Run a client step by step') and defines its output precisely: status across five named phases plus the ONE next step with exact tools. This is clear and non-tautological, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely related siblings like autopilot_run, autopilot_status, or client_overview, which an agent would need in order to route correctly.

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?

Gives concrete trigger phrases ('run Acme Fence', 'onboard my new client', 'what should I do next for X') and a target audience ('an agency new to marketing'). These are actionable usage conditions, but it stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming the alternative tool for adjacent needs, so routing vs autopilot_* remains inferred.

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