check_setup

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explicitly explaining that the one write probe uses validate_only and writes nothing, which removes any concern about mutation. It also aligns with openWorldHint by indicating the results depend on the actual installation, credentials, API version, and access level. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose first, usage trigger second, safety reassurance third. Every sentence adds value and there is no repetition of annotations or schema details.

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 tool has an output schema, so return-value details are not required. The description covers purpose, usage timing, and behavioral safety well. The only meaningful gap is the undocumented optional customer_id parameter, which is a minor omission for an otherwise well-specified diagnostic tool.

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 only parameter, customer_id, has no schema description (0% coverage) and is never mentioned in the tool description. An agent is left guessing whether or how customer_id scopes the setup check; the title 'Customer Id' and default '' provide only minimal hints. With low schema coverage, the description needed to compensate but did not.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and a clear resource ('what this installation can actually do'), enumerating credentials, API version, and permitted API methods. It distinguishes this diagnostic tool from the sibling tools by focusing on the developer token's access level and setup validation.

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 an explicit trigger: 'Run this first when something is refused, or right after setup.' This tells an agent when to use the tool with little ambiguity, though it doesn't name specific alternative tools or when not to use it.

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