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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real value: an auto-verified step will refuse the call, and self-reports that contradict platform data are rejected. This refusal semantics is not derivable from the 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 action, then conditions and rationale. Each sentence carries information, though the rationale clause ('a self-report that contradicts the platform data is worse than no report') is slightly more editorial than operational.

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 two-parameter mutation with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers who the action is on behalf of, which steps qualify, refusal behavior, and key sourcing. It does not mention permission requirements or the audit-trail outcome, but those gaps are minor.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine guidance by telling the agent the key value comes from onboarding_status, which the schema does not say. The note parameter's purpose is left to 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 (mark complete) and resource (manual onboarding step on behalf of the organisation), and immediately scopes it to self-reported, non-verifiable steps. This distinguishes it from the read-only siblings onboarding_status and onboarding_next_step without opening their schemas.

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 clear conditions for use: only steps the customer owns and Aeroz cannot verify automatically, and directs the agent to obtain the key from onboarding_status. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the opposite case (auto-verified steps), but the exclusion condition is explicit.

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