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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and side-effect behavior. The description adds only that the continuation credential is private, without explaining status values, errors, or credential handling.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, its brevity contributes to under-specification rather than efficient completeness.

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 tool with two required parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain what "id" identifies, what status information is returned, or how errors/expired credentials are handled.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It references the continuation credential but says nothing about the required "id" parameter or the credential's format/length, leaving both parameters largely undocumented.

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: "Read onboarding status." An agent can tell this retrieves status rather than starting/exchanging onboarding, though the description does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like start_onboarding.

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?

Mentions using the "private continuation credential," implying a post-onboarding-start context, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives among sibling tools.

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