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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the all-false annotations: it warns never to ask for or paste engine credentials, explains that engine subscriptions connect through the dashboard, marks next_action_detail as deprecated with a removal date, and documents the usage block for capacity-aware automation. Nothing here contradicts the annotations; the polling/check framing is consistent with a status inspection tool.

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 description is long but tightly structured: purpose first, then next_action protocol, per-step routing, deprecation notice, security directive, and polling responsibility. Each sentence earns its place and there is no 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?

For a zero-parameter polling tool with an output schema, the description covers the return fields, the action protocol, step-specific tool routing, deprecation timing, security constraints, usage block, and server push behavior. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema documents 100% of nothing, so the baseline is 4. The description instead clarifies the output contract, especially the next_action/next_tool/next_step protocol, which is the meaningful semantic content an agent needs.

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 description opens with a specific purpose: 'Check what is set up so far and what to do next to get building.' It then enumerates the exact fields reported (engine_connected, github_connected, project_count, payment_status, next_action), which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_provisioning_status or connect_github.

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?

Usage is explicit: poll the tool between steps, follow next_action VERBATIM, and branch to connect_github, create_project, import_project, or get_provisioning_status depending on the current step. It also states that re-checking is the client's job because the server does not push, removing any ambiguity about when and how often to call it.

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