Activation cockpit status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds value by stating the return fields and alternative resource access, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 two sentences plus a return shape, with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently adds guidance, alternative access, and return structure.

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's simplicity, one optional parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description fully covers purpose, usage, and return format. It also mentions an alternative access method, making it complete.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the single optional parameter 'project_id' with its default behavior. The description does not add additional parameter details, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 returns the 'unified activation posture' with specific fields, and distinguishes it as the first step before guessing onboarding blockers. The verb 'Return' and resource are specific, and it differentiates from siblings by providing usage context.

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 explicitly says 'Read this before guessing which onboarding step is blocking the user,' giving a clear when-to-use. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the guidance is straightforward and actionable.

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