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

The description accurately reflects the read-only nature of the operation without contradicting the annotations. It provides additional context about the type of information returned, though it does not explicitly state side effects (which are none given the read-only hint).

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 concise, using a single interrogative sentence followed by a clear list of returned information. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 covers the core purpose and the main output content. While it does not elaborate on the output schema structure or potential errors, the presence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the tool make this sufficient.

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 no parameters in the schema, so no parameter description is needed. The description adds no unnecessary detail about parameters.

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 returns onboarding status, listing specific items like registered agents, capability manifests, progress checklist, and testnet config. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'register' or 'discover_agents' by focusing on the user's own onboarding state.

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, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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