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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses ordering ('Steps not yet done come first'), access-control behavior ('Only steps the caller may take are listed'; hidden steps are counted with a note), the instruction never to ask for secrets in chat, and the default project behavior. This is far beyond a generic read-only hint.

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 long but every sentence carries a distinct behavioral detail, and the primary purpose is front-loaded. It could be clearer with bullet-like structure, but there is no wasteful 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?

Since no output schema is provided, the description correctly compensates by defining the key return fields ('id', 'scope', 'done', 'why', 'how'), the hidden count with note, and the projects list. Given the one optional parameter and no annotations, this is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 only says 'project' is an optional key with an example, but the description explains the actual behavior when omitted: the caller's only visible project is used, or if multiple exist, 'projects' is returned and only company steps are answered. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema.

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 names the resource and action: it reports what setup steps remain and what is already set up for a company and one project. It also gives an explicit invocation cue, 'when the person has just started or asks what else the tracker can do', and is distinct from the many get_* sibling tools.

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 provides clear context for when to call the tool and explains project-selection behavior when no project is supplied or when multiple projects exist. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative, but no sibling appears to offer the same onboarding-checklist capability.

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