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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: next_steps is ordered and attributed (agent vs. user), browser links must be relayed verbatim, and the tool is meant to be re-called iteratively after each step.

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 primary instruction ('Start here...'), then progressively adds what is checked, the next_steps semantics, and the link/re-call rules. Dense but each sentence carries operational weight; minor density without waste.

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 no output schema, the description must explain return values, and it does describe next_steps contents, ordering, ownership, and links. It does not describe the per-item 'set up vs. missing' result shape in detail, but for a read-only status tool the coverage is strong.

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 coverage is 100% and the single team_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its default and where to obtain it. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Shows what is set up and what is still missing before campaigns can send') and enumerates exactly what it inspects: billing, inboxes/warmup, sender profiles, LinkedIn accounts, campaigns. It is clearly distinct from sibling action tools like setup_outbound_campaign or list_campaigns.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('Start here with a new or unfamiliar account') and prescribes the follow-up loop ('Call again after each step to see what is left'), plus how to handle returned links. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use or a sibling alternative, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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