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

Annotations already mark this read-only and non-destructive; the description adds scope by explaining these are manual merchant-side steps and that each section tells the user what to do and why. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the core resource ('merchant-side setup steps Pollen cannot do via API') and then give concrete examples and a usage trigger. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 no-parameter, read-only information tool with strong annotations, the description is complete: it defines scope, content style, and when to call it. No output schema exists, but the description adequately characterizes what the returned instructions contain.

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 has zero parameters and the schema fully documents that fact, so parameter semantics are inherently well-covered. The description reinforces that the tool returns instructional content rather than requiring input.

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 states a specific verb and resource: getting merchant-side setup steps that Pollen cannot perform via API. It names concrete items like platform plugin/extension activation and surface connections, making it easy to distinguish from sibling status and audit tools.

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?

It explicitly says to use the tool 'when onboarding or when the user asks what's left to set up?'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the 'cannot do via API' framing clarifies the boundary between this tool and API-driven setup operations.

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