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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context with 'backend-owned', signaling the stage is server-computed and not client-writable, but says nothing about return format, volatility, or auth expectations. Moderate added value against an already-documented safety profile.

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?

A single tight sentence with the returned content front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately sized, though the extreme brevity is what leaves the other dimensions thin.

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's enumeration of the three returned components (stage, readiness dimensions, next best action) carries the return-value burden and does so adequately. However, with no usage guidance and half the parameters undocumented, an agent still lacks enough to invoke this confidently in context.

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 50%: workspaceId is documented (including that it comes from the start or status tool), but outputFormat has no description beyond its enum and default. The description supplies no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the uncovered half. The self-explanatory enum/default on outputFormat is the only thing keeping this above a 1.

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 pairs a clear verb ('Return') with a specific resource set: the journey stage, readiness dimensions, and next best action for the revenue onboarding flow. An agent can distinguish this read-status tool from start_sulvo_revenue_onboarding and set_sulvo_onboarding_journey. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as get_sulvo_activation_smoke_status or set_sulvo_onboarding_journey, and no preconditions are given. Usage must be inferred from the name alone. This is the definition's weakest area.

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