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 established. The description adds valuable behavioral context by enumerating exactly what the tool returns, including the distinction between what can be done now vs. still needs to be done, which goes beyond the 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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose with a natural question and then itemizes the return payload. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundant information.

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, an output schema present, and a description that lists all key pieces of the returned onboarding status, an agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly. The description fully captures the scope of information returned.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The baseline of 4 for no parameters is appropriate; the description adds no parameter info because none exists.

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 uses a specific verb 'Returns' and a concrete resource: onboarding status. It lists distinct deliverables (registered agents, capability manifests, progress checklist, Base Sepolia config, current vs. pending actions), making it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like get_recommended_action or discover_agents.

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?' clearly signals the intended context for use. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the onboarding-specific scope plus the annotated read-only nature effectively tells an agent when to invoke it.

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