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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this by saying 'Returns' and listing read-only artifacts. It adds context beyond the annotations by specifying personalized progress and capability manifest contents, without contradicting any annotation.

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 moves from the core question to a compact but information-dense list of return contents. Every phrase earns its place and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema or annotations.

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 the empty input schema, rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential decision-relevant information: what is returned, that it is personalized to the authenticated principal, and that it guides next steps. No critical context 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema already documents the no-arguments contract and principal-derived ownership. With no parameters, there is nothing beyond the schema for the description to add, so the baseline 4 applies.

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 then states a concrete return value: registered agents, capability manifests, progress checklist, Base Sepolia config, and available vs. pending next steps. This makes it unmistakably a status/read tool rather than an onboarding action like register.

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 description clearly implies use when the agent or user needs current onboarding status and a personalized next-action list. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the 'what you can do now vs. still need' framing gives enough context for an agent to choose this tool over action-oriented siblings.

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