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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, but the description adds real nuance beyond them: 'Sends nothing' tells the agent no message is delivered, and 'Starting again restarts the test' explains that repeated calls reset progress rather than continue it. That restart semantics detail is exactly the kind of information an agent needs before retrying, and it is not derivable from the annotations alone (idempotentHint=true would otherwise suggest a harmless repeat).

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the return value, then the restart and no-send caveats — every sentence carries information. It is dense and slightly run-on in the middle, but no sentence is wasted or redundant.

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, and the description carries that burden by describing the return value ('ask_person: what the person should do') with a concrete example. Combined with the next-step instruction and the no-send/restart caveats, an agent has everything needed to invoke and follow through 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema documents nothing about account_id beyond its UUID type. The description compensates partially by making clear it identifies a 'connected account', which is meaningful context, but it adds no detail on where to source the ID or what happens if it is invalid or not connected.

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 ('Starts the test') scoped precisely to 'one connected account', and the closing sentence 'Sends nothing' removes the main ambiguity about whether this contacts the person. The description also positions the tool in the flow by naming check_setup_test, so an agent can separate the start step from the verification step.

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 explicit operational sequencing: take the 'ask_person' instruction, tell the person, then call check_setup_test. It also clarifies the re-invocation case with 'Starting again restarts the test'. It does not state any when-not conditions or prerequisites, but for a two-step setup flow the guidance is clear enough to act on.

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