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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description goes much further by disclosing the returned step shape, that undone steps come first, that steps requiring higher privileges are collapsed into 'hidden' with a 'note', and the explicit rule never to request tokens or keys in chat. This is substantive behavioral context an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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?

It is front-loaded with the purpose and then the return shape, and every clause carries information. It is a single dense paragraph with nested parentheticals, which makes it harder to scan than a short bulleted statement, but nothing is redundant.

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, so the description carries the full burden of explaining the response, and it does: field names, meaning of each field, ordering, permission-based filtering, and the fallback behaviour for the single optional parameter. An agent has everything needed to call it 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 the parameter itself is documented; the description nevertheless adds real semantics beyond the schema by explaining what happens when 'project' is omitted and when several projects are visible ('projects' lists them and only company-level steps are answered). That resolves ambiguity the schema's one-line description leaves open.

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 names a specific resource ('what this company and one of its projects could still set up in the tracker, and what is set up already') and states the scenario that identifies it ('just started'). It is clearly distinct from the sibling set, where the nearest neighbours like product_help or list_projects do different jobs.

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 gives an explicit trigger: 'call it when the person has just started or asks what else the tracker can do'. It does not name a when-not condition or point to an alternative sibling (e.g. product_help) for non-onboarding questions, so it stops short of a 5.

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