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 is covered. The description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations by specifying exactly what data is returned and the fact that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal (from the input schema description). This gives the agent a clear model of what the call will do without side effects.

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, information-dense sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the purpose question and then lists the returned components in a readable sequence. It could be slightly overlong with the compound list, but every clause contributes meaningful information, so it earns a high score.

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?

For a read-only, zero-parameter status tool with an output schema present, the description is fully sufficient. It tells the agent what it will receive, that no arguments are needed, and how the ownership context is determined. Annotations cover the mutation/safety profile, so nothing essential 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 accepts zero parameters, so there are no semantic gaps to fill. The schema description explicitly states 'No arguments' and clarifies that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal, which is helpful context. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies here.

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 direct question that anchors the tool's purpose, then states a specific verb ('Returns') and the resource (onboarding state). The return items are concrete and detailed: registered agents, capability manifests, progress checklist, testnet config, and actionable next steps. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like register, discover_agents, or get_recommended_action.

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 phrasing 'Where am I in onboarding?' plus 'exactly what you can do now vs. still need' gives a clear context for when an agent should call this tool: whenever it needs a current status of the onboarding process. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the purpose is narrow enough that the context is unambiguous.

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