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

The description adds meaningful detail beyond the annotations by stating exactly what the read-only operation returns. It confirms a non-mutating status lookup and gives the agent a concrete picture of the response. No contradiction with the readOnly, idempotent, or non-destructive hints.

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 sentence that front-loads the user-facing question and then itemizes the returned contents. Every phrase adds value, and the structure is easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 no parameters, strong annotations, and an existing output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how it should be used. The mention of 'what you can do now vs. still need' also hints at the onboarding-specific next-step value.

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 input schema fully documents that no arguments are needed. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the return payload instead of parameters.

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: onboarding status. It uses a specific return verb and enumerates the exact data returned (agents, capability manifests, progress checklist, testnet config, next actions). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_recommended_action or register, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 opening question 'Where am I in onboarding?' clearly signals the intended use case: checking onboarding progress and current capabilities. It provides clear context for when to call the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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