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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a conditional-behavior hint, but does not resolve the key behavioral question: whether a matching account type yields no result, an error, or the same steps. That ambiguity is left for the agent to guess.

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?

One short sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. The trailing conditional is the only weak element — it is vague rather than verbose, so it costs clarity more than length.

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?

For a simple single-parameter read tool with a fully documented enum and no output schema, the essential contract is present. However, the undefined 'differs from the one given at the start' condition leaves the trigger for calling it and the expected result shape unresolved.

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 enum parameter carries a full definition of each of the five account types, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the phrase 'one account type', contributing nothing about format or default beyond the schema.

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: 'Return the share steps', scoped to 'one account type'. The trailing conditional clause is vague but does not obscure what the tool returns; an agent can distinguish it from the sibling setters/start_project_link tools, though it offers no explicit differentiation from get_activation_steps.

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 via the clause 'if the client's account differs from the one given at the start', which gestures at a when-to-use condition but never defines 'the start' or what to do otherwise. No alternatives are named and no exclusion is stated, leaving the agent to infer the triggering scenario.

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