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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description nonetheless adds valuable behavior — that it is the sequencing entry point and should be re-read after every setup step, and what state it surfaces ('the one next step'). The trailing 'Read-only' restates the annotation rather than adding anything.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the calling instruction, and every clause carries information (scope, timing, returned fields). The only marginal waste is the redundant 'Read-only' closer.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned surface (profile fields, subscription, receptionist + phone number, calendar connection) and the concept of a 'next step'. It stops short of describing how the next step is encoded or behavior when setup is already complete, which would matter for a status tool consumed in a loop.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty 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 uses a specific verb ('Read') plus a precisely scoped resource ('where first-time SkipCalls setup stands') and enumerates the exact payload (business profile category/address, subscription, first receptionist with auto-assigned number, optional calendar). It implies separation from the other onboarding_* siblings (which write), but never names them, so an agent must infer which onboarding tool mutates vs reads.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: 'Call first for any "set up my account" request and again after each step' gives both an entry condition and a repeat cadence. There is no when-not guidance or explicit pointer to the write siblings that follow each step, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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