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

Annotations cover safety (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds genuinely useful interpretive behaviour: side="aeroz" steps are Aeroz's obligation and must be framed as such. It also compensates for the absent output schema by listing the returned fields. It does not reconcile the surprising readOnlyHint=false for what reads like a pure reporting call, so it is not fully transparent about whether invoking it mutates anything.

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 payload contents before usage and caveat, and each of the three sentences carries distinct information with no filler. The quoted question list is slightly padded but does buy real usage signal.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers both the return contents and the intended questions well, which is the main completeness burden here. Missing only marginal items: any note on freshness/caching or why the annotation flags it as non-read-only.

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 takes zero parameters, so per rubric the baseline is 4; there is no argument syntax the description needs to add. Schema coverage is 100% and empty, requiring no compensation.

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 ('Report where this organisation stands') and resource (Aeroz onboarding), then enumerates exactly what is returned: stage, percentage complete, health, next action, and open steps with owner. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling 'onboarding_next_step' or 'complete_onboarding_step', which is a real overlap given it also returns 'the single next action'.

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 concrete consumption contexts via the quoted operator questions ('what do we still need to do', 'why are we not live yet', 'what is Aeroz waiting on'), which tells the agent when this beats a generic status lookup. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when NOT to use it (e.g. versus onboarding_next_step).

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