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

With readOnly and non-destructive annotations already covering safety, the description adds meaningful context: it returns the next open step plus five following steps, and it explains the distinction between 'done means confirmed by Goppa's data' and user-marked steps showing as 'reported by you'. This goes beyond what the annotations provide.

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 two compact sentences and front-loads the core resource. It is mostly efficient, though 'the steps' is slightly vague against the longer phrase about what the step contains.

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 the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description provides enough about the returned content: next open step plus five after, contents, and done-status semantics. It omits the site-selection behavior, but that is fully covered in the schema.

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 100% and the single optional 'site' parameter is already well documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

It names a specific resource ('next open step in the Goppa guide and the five after it') and describes what that step contains ('what to do, why, the steps, and where to see the effect'). It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_fixes_to_apply or get_seo_fixes.

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?

The description implies this is used to see your next step, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to call it versus alternatives such as get_fixes_to_apply or get_seo_fixes. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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