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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context beyond the annotations by enumerating the concrete contents of the response, including manifests, checklist, and config. No contradiction with 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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose as a question, then lists contents in order of relevance, ending with the actionable distinction between what can be done now versus still needed. Every clause earns its place with no wasted words.

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 a rich output schema and strong annotations, the description is complete: it names all major return categories, implies the authentication model via schema, and needs no additional prerequisites. The output schema covers return-value details, so nothing essential 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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The schema description already clarifies that no arguments are needed and that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 natural-language question, 'Where am I in onboarding?', then states the verb 'Returns' followed by a precise enumerated resource list: registered agents, capability manifests, a progress checklist, the Base Sepolia testnet config, and a do-now vs. still-need breakdown. This clearly differentiates it from the benchmark-focused siblings like benchmark_get_results.

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 clearly implies when to use it - whenever an agent needs onboarding status or a capability inventory - by spelling out exactly what is returned. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so there is no exclusion guidance.

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