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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying what the status report includes, including a progress checklist and exactly what the user can do now versus later, which is more than the annotations alone convey.

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 leads with the purpose and packs the key output categories into a compact list. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague 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 the tool's simple zero-parameter shape, rich annotations, and existing output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what the tool returns, why it matters, and how it frames next steps. There are no material gaps that would prevent correct selection or invocation.

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 the input schema already states that no arguments are needed and the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. With no parameters to document, the description has no additional semantic burden here.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and a well-defined resource (onboarding status), then enumerates the exact contents: registered agents, capability manifests, progress checklist, Base Sepolia config, and current vs. remaining actions. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like discover_agents or get_recommended_action by framing the tool as a consolidated status snapshot rather than a single-purpose lookup.

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?' provides a clear contextual trigger for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use them, but its scope is clear enough that an agent can infer this is the go-to for overall onboarding status.

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