This varient can not be considered a "stealth" aircraft. What they're applying here is "signature reduction"; i.e. reducing the range at which it can be successfully engaged, rather than trying to make it invisible to sensors. About 85 percent of an objects RCS (radar cross section) is determined by shaping. Shaping controls first-order specular reflections; put another way, the planform shape of the object is shaped in such a way that most of the radar energy striking it is reflected in a direction away from the radar transmitter/reciever. There's little they can do for the F-15 in this regard, except for canting the tail fins (again, still minor compared to the planform) and storing ordnance internally (which will limit the striking power). Second-order radar scattering comes from edges, seams, and cavities. This is the other 15% of the RCS. This is the area they can work on with the F-15. What they're going for is reducing the signature just enough to allow the F-15 to deploy its own weapons against a target at a slightly greater range then it can be engaged at in return, or at least reduce the time an enemy has to engage it.
Of the second-order scattering features they can treated on the Eagle, the largest are the cockpit and the engine intakes. The cockpit is the easier of the two to treat without affecting aerodynamic charactoristics (serrated window edges and metalizing the canopy, for example). The intakes represent an order of magnitude more difficult problem; they are essentially giant wave guides that trap electromagnetic energy and then spew it back out in all directions. The engine placement is something they can do nothing about, and there is not enough intake length to place effective radar baffels within it. Cracks, gaps, and leading/trailing edges can be treated to attenuate their scattering somewhat.
If I were to take an educated guess (and I have that education

), I'd say they can get maybe a 20db reduction in signature. That will reduce radar engagement ranges by about 40% to 50% against reasonably modern air defence/air-2-air systems. Against some threats, that will be enough. It then becomes a cost-benefit analysis to determine if the cost (production and maintenance) is worth it, given the reduced payload and (possibly) strike range of the modified aircraft.