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

Annotations already cover the safe read-only/idempotent profile, yet the description adds real behavioral context: results are ordered most urgent first, the agent should walk the user through open steps one at a time, and it must never invent steps or self-report progress. These workflow constraints are absent from the structured fields.

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?

Well front-loaded: trigger context first, then return shape, then the operating rules. The enumeration of returned fields is slightly verbose and partially duplicates the output schema, but every sentence still carries usable information.

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 an output schema present and rich annotations, the description only needed to supply the trigger, the ordering, and the interaction rules — and it does all three. An agent has everything required to call and present 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?

Zero parameters, which is the baseline 4; the description reinforces this with 'Takes no arguments', removing any doubt, though there is nothing further to add about 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?

States a specific verb+resource: returns the open and done steps of the user's own action plan, with stepId, service, masked address and done state. An agent can distinguish it from leakdata.protection_summary or leakdata.breach_lookup purely from the description.

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?

Explicit trigger conditions are given ('when the linked LeakData user asks what they should do about their breaches, what is left on their list'). The exclusion against marking progress implies leakdata.mark_step_done is the alternative, but that sibling is never named, so routing is left partly to inference.

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