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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description aligns with these traits and adds useful detail about what the call returns, such as the checklist and Base Sepolia config. No behavioral surprises are hidden.

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?

One sentence conveys the tool's purpose and full output scope with no filler. The question-style opener is effective, and the list of returned items is compact yet complete.

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 tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers all the essential information an agent needs: what the tool does, what it returns, and that it is safe to call. Nothing important 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 the input schema already provides a descriptive note that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. With no parameters to document, the description is not expected to add parameter-level detail.

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 names a specific resource (onboarding status) and a clear verb (returns), then enumerates the exact content: registered agents, capability manifests, progress checklist, testnet config, and next actions. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like register or discover_agents, which have different purposes.

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 emphasis on progress and 'what you can do now vs. still need' make the intended use case obvious. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for correct selection among siblings.

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