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

The description states the tool 'Returns' data, indicating no direct mutation, and annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive hints. It adds output detail but does not disclose additional side effects beyond what annotations cover.

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, front-loaded sentence that begins with the key use case and then lists expected outputs in a clear, compact manner. No redundant or filler language is present.

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 description provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and returns, especially since an output schema is marked as available. It could be slightly more explicit about error or not-registered cases, but the 'what you can do now vs. still need' phrasing covers common gaps.

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 there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description correctly relies on the authenticated principal, matching the schema's empty property list.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('onboarding status'), and enumerates concrete outputs. It distinguishes itself from siblings like register and discover_agents by focusing on status/next-steps rather than actions.

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?' implies when to use the tool, and the description mentions 'what you can do now vs. still need,' but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as get_recommended_action or register. Usage guidance is present but implied rather than explicit.

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