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

Annotations already carry the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety profile. The description adds value by disclosing the exact payload the agent will receive (agents, manifests, checklist, testnet config, next actions), which sets expectations beyond a simple 'returns status'. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences with zero filler: the purpose question front-loads intent, and the enumeration of five concrete output categories is information-dense without being bloated. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple (0 params), has a rich output schema, and fully annotated behavior (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive). The description covers what the agent will receive, and the output schema covers structure, so nothing material 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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4; the schema description goes further by explaining 'No arguments — the owner is derived from the authenticated principal', which preempts any confusion about missing arguments. This pushes it to a 5.

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 the question 'Where am I in onboarding?' and states the verb 'Returns' with a specific resource list: registered agents, capability manifests, progress checklist, Base Sepolia config, and actionable next steps. This specific verb+resource framing clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like a2awire_guide or check_earnings.

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 framing ('Where am I in onboarding?') establishes a clear context for when to call the tool: whenever the agent or user needs to know onboarding status or next steps. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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