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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing return semantics not in any schema — the ordered missing-item list and the 'ask' field for what is still missing — plus the substantive rule that tax must be explicitly answered and the default is not an answer. It stops short of describing pagination/format or edge cases like a fully complete space.

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?

The readiness question is front-loaded and the content is ordered to match the workflow (what to write first, then what to ask, then scope exclusion). It is somewhat long and rhetorical in places ("the fastest way to lose them", "the default is not an answer"), but those lines carry actionable rules rather than filler.

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, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the missing behavioral and procedural context: what the checklist contains, in what order, and how to act on each answer. Only the concrete shape of the response beyond the 'ask' field is left implicit, which is minor for a read-only status 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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly spends no words on parameter behavior and focuses entirely on workflow.

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?

The opening sentence states the exact question the tool answers ("Is this space ready to invoice, and if not, the next question to ask — in order") and enumerates the checklist contents: name, country, currency, tax scheme, address, payment instructions, numbering format, logo, first client. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming core_schema and core_set_company_profile as different concerns. An agent can identify this as the readiness-check tool without opening the schema.

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?

It gives an explicit precedence rule ("Call this FIRST in a space you have not seen before"), a decision rule for the sibling mutation tool (write known facts to core_set_company_profile before asking anything), sequencing of questions, and a scoping exclusion ("Nothing here is needed for a job-hunt space"). This is about as close to when/when-not/alternatives as a description gets.

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