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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them by disclosing that steps are returned "in call order" and that post-final-step behavior is included, making clear this is a procedural guide rather than a flat list.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the key facts (ordered steps, post-completion behavior) are front-loaded. Phrasing like "sign up one project" is slightly terse but not wasteful.

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 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, little is required of the description. It states what is returned and its ordering, which is sufficient for an agent to decide to call it first in an onboarding flow.

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 no parameter meaning to convey and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not waste space on inputs.

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 uses a concrete verb ("Return") and a specific resource ("every step to sign up one project"), so an agent knows this yields a sign-up procedure rather than status or sharing data. It does not explicitly name a sibling like get_share_steps or describe_service to contrast against, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 only implied: the phrase "sign up one project" signals this is the entry point for onboarding, and "what happens after the last step" hints it should be called before executing the flow. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or hand-off to siblings such as get_link_status.

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