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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description usefully expands them: it clarifies read-only means no approval, no activation, and no test events sent, notes the callback-evidence caveat ('not business success or Meta receipt'), and gives a credential prerequisite. That is meaningful added context beyond the structured hints, though it omits any latency/rate or return-shape notes.

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 what it reads, then stacks the read-only and caveat clauses. It is dense and every clause carries information, though the telegraphic fragments ('Read-only: makes no approval or activation...') read a bit choppy rather than smoothly structured.

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 helpfully enumerates the returned facets, so an agent knows what to expect. Combined with the read-only confirmation and prerequisite, it is complete enough for a zero-param read tool, though it does not explain the format of the 'single next step' or how the state is keyed.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate (baseline 4). No parameter-level detail is needed or expected here.

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 ('Reads') and resource ('connected site's setup state') and enumerates the exact facets returned (plan approval, installation generation, missing callback sources, pauses, next step). It is clear on its own, but it never names or contrasts the many overlapping siblings (check_live_setup, setup_status, tracking_status, verify_install), so an agent cannot definitively disambiguate from the description alone.

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 the read-only progress surface and states a prerequisite ('Requires a connected site') and a scope note ('Verification-only setup works without Meta credentials'). However it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance against the numerous sibling status tools, leaving the selection to inference.

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