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 detail about the returned data bundle, but otherwise doesn't describe additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements or dynamic world state, making a solid but not exceptional score appropriate.

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 that leads with the core question and then enumerates the returned items without filler. Every phrase adds value, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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 no parameters, a high-coverage schema description, comprehensive safety annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers all essential calling context. It also includes the 'what can you do now vs. still need' framing, which directly supports an agent's decision to call it for orientation.

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 schema description explicitly states that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. The description reinforces this by referring to 'your registered agents' without asking for inputs, which is sufficient given no parameters exist.

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 identifies the tool as an onboarding status retriever, specifying exactly what it returns: registered agents, capability manifests, a progress checklist, testnet config, and current vs. remaining actions. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate itself, but the scope is concrete enough that an agent can tell it apart without opening schemas.

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?' establishes a clear usage context: use this when an agent or principal needs to determine onboarding progress and next steps. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the return contents make the intended scenario apparent.

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