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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the reported onboarding steps and that it targets the current year, but it does not explain default behavior (e.g., handling of the optional 'year' parameter) or the return format.

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 a single sentence with a clear, front-loaded main purpose and a list of example contents. It is reasonably concise and avoids irrelevant details.

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 no output schema, the description only partially describes what is returned (the list of onboarding steps) but lacks any indication of the data format or how the optional year parameter affects the result. It is incomplete for a tool with an optional parameter.

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 schema has one optional integer 'year' with no description and 0% schema description coverage. The description completely omits any mention of the parameter; saying 'current year' could mislead the agent into thinking the year cannot be specified. This is a significant gap.

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 clearly states it returns the user's LMNP onboarding progress for the current year and lists the tracked steps (property creation, income/expense recording, depreciation configuration, closing, tax PDF generation). It uses a specific verb 'Retourne' and a specific resource, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_dashboard_summary.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only implies use for checking onboarding progress, with no exclusions or mention of sibling tools that might be more appropriate for specific scenarios.

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