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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds useful context about what content is returned, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects beyond what annotations already provide.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core question ('Where am I in onboarding?') and then lists exactly what is returned. Every segment adds meaningful detail with no filler or redundancy.

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 the empty input schema, the rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and call the tool correctly. It states the purpose, the return contents, and the immediate value, leaving no critical gaps.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents that no arguments are needed and the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. The description adds no conflicting or confusing parameter information, matching the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') with a well-defined resource: onboarding status, agents, capability manifests, progress checklist, and testnet config. It clearly identifies the tool's role as a status/read tool and distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like register or discover_agents.

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?

It clearly implies when to use it: when the user needs to know where they are in onboarding and what they can do next. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the onboarding-status framing makes the use case clear enough.

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