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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds only the scope of the data (wizard progress plus activation health) and no further behavior such as freshness, caching, or account/permission requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, restatement, or trailing caveats. Every clause contributes: the verb, the resource, and the account scope.

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?

With zero parameters, full annotation coverage, and an output schema carrying the return structure, the definition has little left to explain. The one residual gap is disambiguation from get_setup_context, which an agent could confuse with this tool.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-arg tool is 4. The improvised scoping phrase 'current AffiliateBase account' is the only parameter-like semantics and is consistent with the empty 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 concrete verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('setup wizard progress and activation health'), which is more than a restatement of the name. However, it does not distinguish itself from the closely related sibling get_setup_context, so an agent can't fully resolve the two from the description alone.

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 says what is returned but never when to call it or when to prefer an alternative such as get_setup_context or verify_tracking_installation. Usage is only weakly implied by the phrase 'current AffiliateBase account'; there are no explicit conditions or exclusions.

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