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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the shape of the response (completed steps, required steps, overall completion flag), which is valuable because no output schema exists. It stops short of noting permission requirements or freshness/caching behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose first, return detail second, zero filler or restatement of the 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and return contents adequately. The remaining gap is entity disambiguation among the many onboarding-related siblings.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to document or clarify on the input side.

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?

States a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('the user's onboarding progress') plus the returned content. However, the sibling list contains several near-identical onboarding tools (get_agent_onboarding, get_customer_onboarding, onboarding_v7, complete_onboarding), and the description does nothing to distinguish which onboarding entity this targets.

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 says what it does but never when to call it versus the many sibling onboarding tools, nor any prerequisite (e.g. after which step it becomes meaningful). Usage is only inferable from the tool name, which is exactly what the description should be adding value over.

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