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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lowered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by specifying that this is a status snapshot and by conveying what the returned guidance covers, including what can be done now versus what is still needed.

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 tightly written sentence plus a front-loaded orienting question. Every phrase earns its place—status, agents, manifests, checklist, config, and next steps—without repetition or filler.

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?

Given zero parameters, rich annotations, and an existing output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It tells the agent why to call the tool, what it will receive, and how to use the answer for deciding next actions, which is complete for an onboarding status tool.

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 input schema already explains that no arguments are needed and the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. The 0-param baseline of 4 applies, and no additional parameter description is necessary.

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 the specific verb 'Returns' with an explicit resource: the current onboarding status. It then enumerates exactly what that includes—registered agents, capability manifests, progress checklist, and testnet config—which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like discover_agents or register.

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 use case: the agent should call this when it needs to know current onboarding state and next steps. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear alongside the sibling list.

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