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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them: `recalculate=true` triggers a slower fresh scoring pass, and the multi-server path returns `tool_to_call: null` with `data.manual_handoff`. That hand-off behavior is non-obvious and well disclosed.

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 tight paragraphs, front-loaded with the core behavior before the edge case. Field-name jargon (`tool_to_call`, `data.manual_handoff`) is dense but informative; little wasted text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape detail is largely redundant but harmless. The description covers the tricky multi-server auth/hand-off path that the schema does not, leaving only minor gaps around the non-required parameters. Adequate for a read-only scoring tool.

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 only 33%, so the description should carry more weight. It explains `recalculate` semantics well, but says nothing about `framework`, `auth_token`, `container_id`, or `server_name` beyond what the schema already states. Partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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 ('Returns scoring-driven ordered setup steps for a container') and names the concrete return fields (`overall_progress`, `next_steps[]`). It does not explicitly differentiate from setup-related siblings like get_status or verify_and_score, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied (fetch ordered setup steps) and the multi-server hand-off scenario is described, but there is no explicit 'use this when X, not Y' routing against siblings such as get_status, get_onboarding_session, or verify_and_score. Guidance exists for one edge case only.

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