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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context beyond annotations by listing what will be returned and framing the operation as a status snapshot rather than a mutation, which is consistent with the 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that leads with the user-facing question and then packs the return contents into a compact, scannable list. Every phrase adds meaning, with no filler or repetition.

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 tool with a rich output schema and readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description is complete: it explains the purpose, the content of the response, and the actionable value ('what you can do now vs. still need'). No critical information is missing.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully handles parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed; the baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('onboarding status'), then enumerates the exact contents: registered agents, capability manifests, progress checklist, Base Sepolia testnet config, and current vs. pending actions. This distinguishes it from siblings like register and discover_agents by focusing on status rather than actions.

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 opening question 'Where am I in onboarding?' and the mention of a 'progress checklist' clearly communicate when to call this tool. It lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to know this is the status-checking tool.

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