Read go-live onboarding status

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: sandbox vs. production differences, Stripe KYC handling, the meaning of completing all six steps, and the login prerequisite. It provides actionable guidance about what the agent should do with the results.

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 four focused sentences, front-loaded with the core function, then adding only necessary environment and action details. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant restating of the tool name or title.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema that handles return values, the description covers all remaining context: the steps involved, sandbox/prod nuance, the Stripe KYC action, completion semantics, and authentication. The agent can correctly decide when to call it and how to act on 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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema provides no opportunities for ambiguity. The description appropriately focuses on behavior and output rather than parameter details, which is enough for a parameterless tool.

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 verb ('Fetch'), a concrete resource ('the 6 dashboard go-live steps'), and the data returned (completion state, suggested next action). It clearly differentiates itself from siblings like get_onboarding_flow by focusing on status and next actions rather than the flow definition.

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?

The description makes the primary use case obvious: retrieve go-live onboarding status and drive the user through required next steps. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough that an agent would know when to invoke it.

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