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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful context beyond the annotations by specifying what the status payload contains, including the Base Sepolia testnet config and an actionable 'can do now vs still need' summary.

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?

Two tight sentences with the user-facing question front-loaded, followed by a compact enumeration of return contents. 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-argument read-only status tool with a rich annotation set and an output schema, the description is complete: it states the purpose, the scoping, and the contents of the response. Nothing an agent needs in order to decide whether to call it 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, so the schema fully covers inputs and the 100% coverage baseline applies. The description reinforces that results are scoped to 'your' authenticated context, matching the schema's note that the owner is derived from the principal.

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 use case ('Where am I in onboarding?') and a specific verb ('Returns'), naming the resource and enumerating its contents: registered agents, capability manifests, progress checklist, Base Sepolia config, and next steps. It is specific enough to distinguish from the benchmark-focused siblings, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 gives a clear invocation context: call this when the user or agent needs onboarding status or next steps. It doesn't state when not to use it or point to alternatives like a2awire_guide, but the use case is unambiguous.

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