beel_get_setup_status

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, and the description redundantly says 'Read-only' – that is consistent. Crucially, it adds behavioral detail beyond annotations: it discloses that it aggregates several endpoints and 'degrades gracefully on partial failures', which tells the agent that isolated failures won't abort the whole call. This is useful context the agent could not have guessed from annotations alone.

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 three tight sentences, each earning its place: purpose and scope, what it reports, and why to use it. It front-loads the read-only nature and aggregates status, and ends with a practical directive. Zero 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?

For a single-parameter read-only report tool with an output schema, this description is complete. It explains the report's content, the aggregation behavior, graceful degradation, and the recommended next action. The presence of an output schema means return-value details need not be in the description. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 single parameter company_id is already fully described in the schema ('Optional: restrict the report to a single company (NIF) id.'). The description reiterates the per-NIF behavior and the optional restriction, but adds no new syntax or format details beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline 3 is appropriate; the description adds marginal value here.

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 verb and resource ('Read-only setup status across your account'), explains the granularity ('for each NIF (company)'), and details exactly what it reports (blockers, default series, VeriFactu, payment connection, recommended next action). It clearly differentiates from siblings by noting it 'aggregates several endpoints' and targets onboarding rather than a single inspection.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to drive onboarding instead of guessing', giving a clear when-to-use scenario. It does not name specific alternative tools or exclusions, but the scope ('across your account' and optional single-company filter) implies when a more targeted call might be preferred. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance but is still very actionable.

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