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 clear. The description adds value by explaining the tool returns a comprehensive status snapshot including agents, manifests, checklist, and config, plus the 'what you can do now vs. still need' distinction—useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It doesn't reveal internal side effects (none exist since read-only), so a 4 is 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 informative sentence that front-loads the core question ('Where am I in onboarding?') and then enumerates the returned elements. Every part earns its place. It could be slightly more structured with a list, but it is appropriately concise for the moderately rich content it conveys.

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?

The output schema exists and the description encompasses the full onboarding status context: agents, manifests, checklist, testnet config, and forward guidance. Given the output schema covers return-value details, the description sufficiently equips an agent to decide when to invoke it. The openWorldHint is also consistent with the broad status enumeration.

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 input schema has zero parameters and the description explicitly states 'No arguments — the owner is derived from the authenticated principal.' With no parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context about how the owner is determined, which is not present in the schema itself, justifying a 4 rather than a lower score.

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 states it returns onboarding status: registered agents, capability manifests, progress checklist, testnet config, and next steps. It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and a distinct resource (onboarding state), distinguishing it from siblings like check_earnings or data_preview. The title 'Onboarding Status' reinforces the purpose without being a tautology.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use it: when the user asks where they are in onboarding. It outlines what the tool provides (progress checklist, what you can do now vs. still need), which implicitly excludes times when the user needs earnings or data tools. Although it doesn't name sibling alternatives, the exact scope and purpose make the usage context unambiguous.

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