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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true/idempotentHint=true, and the description explains exactly why: verify=true 're-loads the site, re-fetches the Terms and policies, re-evaluates and queues the first scan.' That discloses real side effects (queuing a scan, external site fetch) that the annotations alone only hint at, and it explains that the default path is a plain read.

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?

Three short blocks: what it returns, when to verify, and the loop. Return contents are front-loaded and every clause (the parenthetical change examples, the 'until next_action.type is done' stop condition) carries actionable information with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields including the single next_action that drives the workflow. Combined with the stated side effects of verify=true and the terminal transition to complete_setup, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, and the description earns an increment by explaining the intent behind verify=true (trigger it only after a change, loop on it) rather than restating the boolean. It adds no extra detail on setup_session beyond the schema's 'Default: the newest one.'

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Returns the setup checklist of a setup session') and then enumerates the exact contents (snippet installed?, policies, Stripe test mode, verdict, next_action), which lets an agent distinguish it from generic siblings like get_site_status or get_scan. The final sentence explicitly routes to complete_setup as the terminating sibling.

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?

It states when to set verify=true in concrete terms ('after you changed something (installed the snippet, deployed, added a policy page)') and gives an explicit operational loop: do next_action → get_setup_status(verify=true) → repeat until next_action.type is 'done', then call complete_setup. When-to-use and the hand-off condition to an alternative tool are both spelled out.

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