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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Shows'/'check' implies a non-mutating read, and it usefully discloses what fields come back (setup_link_pending, pricing, branding, install details), but says nothing about what setup_claim represents, authorization requirements, or error behavior when the claim is invalid.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the prerequisite. No filler, though the parenthetical field name placement is slightly awkward.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description partially offsets that by naming the returned sections. However, with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, an agent still cannot determine what to pass for setup_claim or how failures are surfaced.

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 0% for both parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not. It restates that org_id and setup_claim are required (already in the schema's required list) but never explains what setup_claim is — a token, an ID, a signed claim string — which is the key ambiguity for correct invocation.

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 ('Shows') and enumerates the concrete resources returned: password-setup state (setup_link_pending), pricing summary, branding, and install details. It implicitly differentiates from narrower siblings like get_pricing_terms and get_install_instructions by bundling them, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 only guidance is 'Requires org_id and setup_claim', which is a prerequisite, not a when-to-use rule. Nothing says when to call this versus get_pricing_terms, get_install_instructions, or resend_setup_email, even though the password-pending signal is clearly the precursor to a resend decision.

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