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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile requires no additional work from the description. The description adds value by disclosing the payload composition (agents, manifests, checklist, config) and the promise of an actionable status summary. No traits beyond these are disclosed, and there is no contradiction with the 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?

A single, well-front-loaded sentence that hooks with the user's likely question and then enumerates the return contents compactly. Every phrase earns its place; there is no filler or redundant schema repetition.

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?

With zero parameters, an output schema present, and annotations covering side effects, the description is largely complete for invocation. It enumerates all return categories an agent would care about. Minor gaps remain (e.g., behavior when onboarding hasn't started), but these are acceptable given the output schema carries the return 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 takes zero parameters, and the schema itself fully documents this ('No arguments — the owner is derived from the authenticated principal'), so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter noise and focuses on the return payload instead.

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 a goal-directed question and then gives a specific verb ('Returns') with a concrete multi-part resource: agents, capability manifests, progress checklist, testnet config, and actionable next steps. This clearly identifies it as the onboarding-status tool and distinguishes its scope from siblings like check_earnings or verify_identity_kyc without naming them. Not a full 5 because it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself against a named alternative.

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 ('Where am I in onboarding?', 'what you can do now vs. still need') rather than explicitly stated. The description never says when not to use it or which sibling covers adjacent onboarding-adjacent cases, leaving the agent to infer intent from the question framing. This is adequate but falls short of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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