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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful transparency about what is included in the response: agents, manifests, progress checklist, Base Sepolia config, and current vs. pending actions. No contradictory behavior is described.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core use case question, followed by a clear enumeration of the returned data. Every phrase earns its place with no fluff or 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?

Given zero parameters, rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what the caller receives. It identifies all key result categories and requires no further clarification for correct invocation.

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, so the schema fully covers parameter expectations. The description's use of 'your' adds the nuance that results are derived from the authenticated principal, consistent with the schema description that no arguments are needed.

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 purpose: reporting onboarding status by returning registered agents, capability manifests, a progress checklist, testnet config, and actionable next steps. The 'Where am I in onboarding?' framing immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like register or discover_agents.

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?' supplies clear context for when to call this tool. It implies the tool is the status-check entry point, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state 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.