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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying what the tool returns and that it reflects the caller's current onboarding state, which goes beyond the annotation data.

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 delivers a dense but organized list of return contents. There is no filler or repeated schema information, and every element 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 (no params, read-only, no nested objects) and has an output schema, so the description need not enumerate return fields. It clearly communicates what the agent will learn and what actionable next-step information is available, making it complete for invocation purposes.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description has no parameter burden to carry. The input schema already explains that no arguments are needed and that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal, which is sufficient.

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 'Where am I in onboarding?' and enumerates the exact resources returned: registered agents, capability manifests, progress checklist, Base Sepolia testnet config, and next steps. It clearly identifies a specific read-only status resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools by name.

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?

Usage context is implied by the onboarding-status framing and the phrase 'exactly what you can do now vs. still need.' However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any when-not-to-use guidance or mention of sibling tools.

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