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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content detail about what the response includes and clarifies that this is a status query rather than a starting action, but it does not disclose additional behavioral caveats.

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 sentence with the most important framing front-loaded. Every item in the list adds value, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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, a full output schema, and annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior, the description covers everything needed to invoke and interpret the call. It even names the testnet config and actionable checklist, leaving no critical context 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?

There are zero parameters and the schema documents that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. The description reinforces the no-argument nature implicitly by asking where the user is in onboarding, so no additional parameter meaning is 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 opens with a concrete question ('Where am I in onboarding?') and lists specific return items: registered agents, capability manifests, a progress checklist, Base Sepolia testnet config, and current vs. pending actions. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like register or discover_agents by focusing on onboarding status.

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 'Where am I in onboarding?' framing makes the intended use case immediately clear: call this when the agent needs the user's onboarding status and next steps. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of full guidance.

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