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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that steps have three states, that a next-step recommendation is included, and that steps are advisory rather than blocking. It does not state that the call is read-only/no side effects, nor anything about permissions or ordering, which leaves the mutation-vs-read question implicit.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core content (what is returned) front-loaded and the usage hint second. No filler; the only slightly soft wording is 'they are loose', which is vague but short.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation here, and the description covers the essentials of a small single-parameter read tool. What is missing is the connection to the write counterpart for marking steps done/skipped, which an agent needs in order to act on the returned steps.

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?

Only one parameter (visit_id) with 0% schema description coverage. The phrase 'for a visit' implies the parameter is a visit identifier, but the description adds no format, sourcing, or validity detail beyond that implication, so it only marginally compensates for the undocumented 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 identifies the resource (guided visit steps for a given visit), the per-step states (done, skipped, open), and that it also returns the next step to suggest. That is a specific retrieval purpose an agent can distinguish from mutation siblings like visits_markStep, though it never names those siblings to sharpen the contrast.

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 conversational usage guidance ('walk the worker through them in conversation') and notes that steps are loose and skippable, which implies this is for guiding rather than enforcing. But it never says when to call this versus visits_markStep (to advance a step) or shops_visitSteps (to configure the step template), leaving the routing decision to inference.

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