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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe, read-only nature is known. The description adds value by specifying that the tool 'Returns completed and remaining steps with a progress percentage and quality score,' giving insight into the output structure and behavior beyond 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?

The description is concise and well-structured: purpose statement, usage examples, and output summary in three short sentences. There is no fluff or redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, when to use, and what to expect in return. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema description for workflow_id is complete (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add parameter-specific details, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning for the single parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'See how far along a compliance workflow is and which steps remain.' It specifies the resource (compliance workflow) and the action (get progress), and distinguishes it from related tools like get_current_step by mentioning remaining steps and a progress percentage.

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 provides explicit usage scenarios: 'Use this when someone asks how much of the gap analysis is done, what percentage is complete, or how many steps are left.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases.

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