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

Annotations already declare the tool as readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is clear. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations by warning about FREE business restrictions, grace-period warnings, and resubscribe link handling. It does not contradict annotations.

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 four sentences, front-loading purpose and adding essential usage guidance. Each sentence adds value, but the focus on prerequisites slightly lengthens it. Still efficient and well-structured for the complexity.

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?

The description lacks details on the return structure (since no output schema exists) and does not explain what 'get-started task progress' entails. Given the single parameter and annotations, it is minimally adequate but leaves the agent uncertain about the response format.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify the single parameter 'communityId.' It only mentions 'for a managed community' but does not specify format (e.g., expected as a string ID), leaving ambiguity. Minimal value added beyond the schema.

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 states 'Get detailed get-started task progress for a managed community,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_get_started_progress_percentage' by emphasizing 'detailed', but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 description explicitly states when to use the tool and prerequisites: 'Check business permissions,' 'FREE businesses cannot use this tool,' and 'Call check_business_tool_access before collecting inputs.' It also provides action items like showing grace-period warnings and never proceeding when blocked, offering clear when-not and alternative actions.

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