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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the special read-scoped mode during Module setup, that `ready` is null when the caller lacks Policy read access, that a Connection visible only to the caller counts for the caller, and that `links_note` suppresses automation links entirely. These are non-obvious edge cases an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Purpose and the 'call this first' instruction are front-loaded, and with no output schema much of the length is justified by response-shape detail (item fields, summary counts, url/urls pairing). However, the middle is a dense run-on catalog that would read far better as a short list, and a few clauses (e.g. the setup-progress fallback) are hard to parse on one pass.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does: `items` shape with every field, the enumerated categories it can cover, `summary` counts, `ready` nullability, and the link/url pairing. Combined with the read-only annotations, an agent has what it needs to call this and present results correctly.

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?

There is a single required parameter, `automation_id`, documented at 100% schema coverage as a UUID. The description never discusses it, so the schema does all the work here; that matches the baseline-3 case for high schema coverage with no added parameter meaning.

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?

Opens with a concrete framing: 'What still has to be set up before an automation can run on real work.' That is a specific diagnostic resource rather than a restatement of the name, and it is clearly separated from sibling readers like getAutomation, listConnections, or readAutomationPolicy.

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 'Call this first for a readiness question' and gives the user phrasings that trigger it, plus a negative rule: use it 'before checking an automation's Connections, Logins or Secrets one by one.' That names both the alternative path and the condition that selects this tool.

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