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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructiveness, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds valuable behavioral context by enumerating exactly what the tool returns, including the Base Sepolia testnet config and the 'can do now vs. still need' distinction.

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 immediately answers the likely user question. Every phrase adds useful information, and the list of returned contents is compact without being vague.

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?

Given zero parameters, a rich annotation set, and an output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to understand the tool's behavior. It explains the output contents and the access model, leaving no critical gap for correct invocation.

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?

This tool has zero parameters and the schema description states that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. The description adds no parameter details, but with no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 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 clearly identifies the resource as onboarding status and specifies the returned content: registered agents, capability manifests, progress checklist, testnet config, and next steps. It is clear but does not explicitly name sibling tools or state what it is not, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 phrasing 'Where am I in onboarding?' implies this is the tool to check progress and current capabilities, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives like register or discover_agents. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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