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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the required api:account scope, the REST response shape ({ success, data }), the specific data fields to read, and the crucial constraint that the user — not the agent — must sign the Hyperliquid agent approval. That last point is a real behavioral limit an agent must know before calling.

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 purpose and the 'call/poll after' instruction are front-loaded, and the later sentences carry load: because there is no output schema, enumerating the data.* fields and the special open_agent_setup.url semantics is necessary rather than padding. It is dense but nearly every sentence earns its place.

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 takes on the return-value burden and does so by listing the key data fields (next, onboarding_completed, wallet_linked, trading_profile, agent_approved, brokerage_connected) plus the special-case open_agent_setup.url. For a zero-parameter status-read tool, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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, so there is no parameter syntax to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly spends its words elsewhere rather than inventing parameter guidance.

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 states a specific check — what remains unfinished on the account setup — and the title 'Get account setup status' pins the resource precisely. It distinguishes itself from siblings like submit_onboarding or start_brokerage_connect by framing the tool as a read of onboarding progress. The opening phrasing is stylistic ('What is still unfinished on YOUR account') but the intent is unambiguous.

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 concrete timing guidance: 'Call this after connecting, and poll it after the user finishes a browser step.' It also marks connect_brokerage as optional and states that Stripe billing is not on this surface, which is a useful scope exclusion. It stops short of naming a specific alternative tool for the excluded billing flow, so it is not a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.

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