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 description need not restate safety. It adds context by detailing what the tool returns—agents, manifests, checklist, testnet config, and status—which goes beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations and provides useful output expectations without needing to cover side effects already handled by annotations.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose with a rhetorical question and then lists the outputs. There is no redundancy or fluff. Every clause adds information: agents, manifests, checklist, config, and status. It is concise and well-structured.

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 status tool with no parameters and an output schema present, the description fully explains what the agent will get: registered agents, capability manifests, progress checklist, testnet config, and a list of what can be done now vs. later. No critical information is missing for an agent to decide whether to call this tool. The output schema covers the return format, so the description need not elaborate further.

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 description adds no parameter details. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is given for 0 params because there is nothing to clarify. The schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema), so no gap exists. The description's mention of 'the owner is derived from the authenticated principal' (in the schema) is not repeated, which is fine.

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 clear question 'Where am I in onboarding?' and states the verb 'Returns' with a specific resource: onboarding status. It enumerates the exact contents (registered agents, capability manifests, progress checklist, testnet config, and actionable vs. pending items), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like register or discover_agents. This is a specific, non-tautological purpose.

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 implies the use case: checking one's onboarding progress. It says 'Where am I in onboarding?' which clearly signals when to call it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Given the sibling list includes register and discover_agents, the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly, but explicit exclusions are missing.

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