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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, and non-idempotent, so the description only needs to add context. It does: it explains how to consume the output (next_step.say in your own words, offer next_step.url as a link) and imposes a security constraint (never request keys, passwords, or card details in chat or pass them to a tool). It does not describe failure modes or what happens when setup is incomplete, which is a minor gap.

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-loads the resource ('Where this business is in setting up TradieBridge') before the triggers and the security rule. Four clauses are somewhat dense but each carries distinct, actionable information, so little is wasted.

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 must explain the return shape, and it does: connected systems, backup-record status, and a single next step with say/url fields. Combined with the call-timing guidance and the security constraint, nothing an agent needs to call and act on this tool is missing.

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 the baseline is 4. The description instead clarifies the semantics of the returned next_step.say and next_step.url fields, which is a sensible use of the space.

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 resource and scope: the business's onboarding state in TradieBridge, including connected systems, whether a backup holds records, and the single next step. An agent immediately understands this is an onboarding-status read, and no sibling tool (whoami, list_connections) covers this same ground.

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 trigger conditions — call it first when nothing is connected, right after sign-up, or when the person asks how to start — and a re-invocation condition ('call it again once they say they are done'). The when/when-again guidance is unambiguous.

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