setup_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that fields carry current values, only blank fields are re-asked, and previously answered fields are never re-asked. It also explains the single-message requirement. While it doesn't explicitly state the tool is read-only, the wording implies it only checks status and returns data. A minor gap is not mentioning error handling or edge cases, but overall it is transparent.

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 well-structured, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then behavior. Each sentence adds value, and the guidance is clear. It is slightly verbose but not excessive; the length is justified by the need to convey usage and behavioral nuances.

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?

The description covers the main workflow and output semantics (ready, questionnaire), and an output schema exists. However, it fails to document the only input parameter (include_optional), which is a significant omission. The description also doesn't address what happens when ready is true beyond implying no questions are needed. Overall it's adequate for the core flow but incomplete due to the parameter gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the include_optional parameter. The agent is left with no information about what this parameter controls or how to use it. With zero schema documentation, the description should compensate, but it doesn't, making this a critical deficiency.

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 states the tool reports profile completeness and provides a questionnaire. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_profile by specifying when to use it (before first application or when get_profile reports missing fields). The purpose is specific and actionable.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: call before the first application and any time get_profile reports missing fields. It also instructs how to handle the questionnaire (ask all at once, hand answers via save_profile) and recommends save_profile over update_profile. This is a model of usage clarity.

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