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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds visibility into what the response contains, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or any state-changing side effects—though none are indicated.

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 starts with the purpose, then compactly enumerates all returned components. Every phrase adds information, and there is no redundant or filler language.

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-argument, read-only status tool with a rich output schema and strong annotations, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know before calling it: what it returns and the fact that no input is required. The output schema handles return-value details, so nothing is missing at the decision level.

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 explicitly says 'No arguments — the owner is derived from the authenticated principal.' With no parameters to document and 100% schema description coverage, the description does not need to add parameter meaning; the baseline for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 opens with a concrete question ('Where am I in onboarding?') and states a specific verb ('Returns') with a rich list of resources: registered agents, capability manifests, progress checklist, Base Sepolia config, and current vs. pending actions. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like register or get_recommended_action by focusing on status rather than action.

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 question-format opening makes the intended use clear: call this when you need to know your onboarding status and what you can currently do. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it falls short of a 5, but the context is strong enough that an agent can infer when it applies.

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