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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states it 'returns' data, implying read-only behavior, but does not explicitly confirm safety (read-only, no side effects). It lacks disclosure of authorization needs, rate limits, or any potential side effects, leaving the agent with minimal transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence (19 words) that efficiently conveys the core action and output components. There is no fluff, and every word serves a purpose.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and two parameters, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'journey stage,' 'readiness dimensions,' or 'next best action' entail, nor their possible values or format. An agent would lack sufficient context to interpret the response 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 coverage is 50%: workspaceId has a helpful description linking to 'start or status tool,' but outputFormat has no description. The tool description adds no extra meaning for parameters; it does not explain workspaceId or outputFormat beyond the schema. Overall, little additional value.

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 that the tool returns 'backend-owned journey stage, readiness dimensions, and one next best action,' specifying the resource (revenue onboarding status) and the components returned. However, it does not differentiate this from similar sibling tools like get_sulvo_activation_smoke_status or get_sulvo_signup_status, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as start_sulvo_revenue_onboarding or set_sulvo_onboarding_journey. The description does not mention prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or provide any contextual cues beyond the tool name.

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