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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds context beyond annotations by noting that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal (in the schema) and by listing the concrete data categories returned, which tells the agent what kind of read this is. It doesn't describe potential rate limits or staleness, but for a read-only onboarding status tool, that's acceptable.

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 one dense, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core question, then lists concrete outputs. Every clause contributes meaningful information, and there is no filler. The clear enumeration makes it easy to parse and act on.

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 no parameters, a rich output schema, and annotations that declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description fully explains what the agent will learn and why it matters, and the output schema covers the return structure. Nothing needed to correctly invoke this tool 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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema description explicitly states 'No arguments — the owner is derived from the authenticated principal.' This fully resolves any ambiguity about what the agent must supply. With no params, the baseline is 4, but the schema's explicit owner-derivation note pushes it to 5 by preempting a common confusion.

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 question ('Where am I in onboarding?') to anchor the tool's purpose, then enumerates the exact resources returned: registered agents, capability manifests, progress checklist, Base Sepolia config, and actionable next steps. This clearly distinguishes it from a generic status tool and makes the value obvious to an agent.

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 implicitly sets the context: use this at the start of onboarding to determine current progress and what actions are available. It names the outputs that help decide next steps, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or reference alternative tools. The absence of any sibling-differentiation language is a minor gap.

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