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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it reveals that the tool returns a progress checklist, capability manifests, and a distinction between 'can do now' vs. 'still need,' which gives the agent a clear picture of the tool's behavioral output.

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 one compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Where am I in onboarding?') and then lists the precise items returned. There is zero waste; every phrase adds information, from the manifests to the testnet config to the actionable next-step distinction.

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 rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint) and an output schema, the description is fully complete. It tells the agent exactly what to expect in the response and covers a useful distinction (current capabilities vs. missing requirements) without needing to detail return-value structure.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema is not the burden. The description explicitly states 'No arguments — the owner is derived from the authenticated principal,' which adds the key semantic context that identity is inferred from the session, not passed in. The description also explains what the tool returns without needing parameter details.

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 states a specific verb ('Where am I in onboarding?') and resource, listing the exact contents returned: registered agents, capability manifests, progress checklist, testnet config, and immediate next steps. It distinguishes itself as an onboarding status tool, though it does not explicitly reference sibling tools to differentiate from 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 description implies strong context for when to use it — when the user asks about onboarding status or 'what can I do now.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but for a zero-parameter status tool, the implied usage is clear and sufficient.

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