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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: universal applicability across plan states and the fact that it surfaces an actionable next-step string. It does not discuss auth requirements, but for a read-only status endpoint that gap is minor.

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-loaded with the payload contents before the workflow guidance, and every sentence is functional. There is slight redundancy in stating 'the single next step in plain words' and then re-describing next_step.say, though the second mention does supply a useful field name in the absence of an output schema.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so by listing the five things it reads plus the next_step.say field. Combined with the explicit call sequence and plan applicability, nothing an agent needs to invoke and act on it is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. There is no parameter behavior to clarify, and the description correctly spends its words on scope and sequencing instead.

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 ('Read where this ZenMode account is in setup') and enumerates exactly what is returned: plan/trial, desktop app installed/online, LinkedIn sign-in, campaign count, and next step. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling mutation tools start_trial and get_desktop_app.

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?

Gives an explicit ordering: get_setup_status, then start_trial (no plan yet), then get_desktop_app (once on a plan). It also states the applicability condition, 'works on every plan, including no plan and Novice,' so the agent knows when the tool is valid and which sibling to call next.

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