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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, not open-world), yet the description adds real behavioral context: the three possible statuses per item ('configured, missing or attention'), the next-step field, the separate `productionNeeds` set, and the non-obvious rule that test-user sign-ins never count as the first real one. That last caveat is genuine behavior an agent could not infer from annotations.

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-loaded with the core purpose, then the item list, then the caveat, then the alternative route — a logical order with no filler sentences. The parenthetical enumeration of checklist items is dense but each element earns its place by telling the agent what to expect in the result.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-shape burden and does so: per-item status values, per-item next steps, and a `productionNeeds` block. Combined with a single well-documented parameter and full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs to call or interpret 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?

Only one optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents `app` and the omit-for-current-app default. The description says 'this app' but adds no format, id-source, or override detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter meaning.

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+resource (readiness checklist for this app) and enumerates exactly what it covers: redirect URIs, default callback, allowed origins, UI URL, sign-in methods/SSO, email sender, Stripe, plans, first real sign-in. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_started, get_auth_config, get_stripe_status or get_app.

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 an explicit routing decision for one case: 'To prove sign-in works, create_test_user then verify_login' — telling the agent when a different path is correct. It also notes the CLI equivalence ('Same as `bridge setup status`'). It does not state exclusions against adjacent diagnostics tools (diagnose_integration, debug_auth_issue, get_started), so it stops short of a full when/when-not map.

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