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

Discloses behaviour well beyond the annotations: it warns the tool is not a pure read (reaching 'ready' persists onboarding-completion state), matches readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false without contradicting them, and adds poll timing, error_kind semantics, and tenant-scoping 404 behaviour.

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-loads the core purpose, then layers state-specific next_action guidance. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the run-on enumeration of next_action variants is slightly hard to scan.

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 single-parameter status tool the description is complete: it covers the states, the error path, the loop-driving next action, and the persistence side effect. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary and the extra detail is bonus.

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?

Only one parameter, project_id, with 0% schema description coverage. The description implies tenant scoping and mentions project_id in the submit_request example, but never clarifies the expected format (ID vs name) or how to obtain it, so it adds limited semantics beyond the self-evident name.

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: checking whether a new project has finished provisioning and is ready to build. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_onboarding_status and project_status through the provisioning-stage framing.

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 prescribes behaviour per state: poll with poll_after_seconds while provisioning, do NOT poll while errored (fix the cause first), and call submit_request(project_id, text) once 'ready'. This is when-to-use guidance at the level of an agent loop, not just a hint.

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