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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context: what the tool returns and the fact that it tells the agent what it can do now versus what is still needed. No contradictions.

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 one compact, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's value proposition and key outputs without padding. The question opening is engaging and immediately orienting; every clause adds meaningful information.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only status tool with an output schema and complete annotations, the description is fully sufficient. It enumerates the major return categories and the progress-related decision aid, so an agent knows exactly what to expect and can decide whether to call it.

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 the baseline is 4. The schema already explains that no arguments are required and the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. The description correctly says 'your' to indicate the authenticated owner, which is sufficient.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') and a clear resource: onboarding status, including registered agents, capability manifests, progress checklist, and testnet config. The question phrasing frames the tool's purpose unmistakably, and it stands apart from siblings because nothing else addresses onboarding status.

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?' clearly signals the intended use case. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name an alternative tool, but the context is strong enough for an agent to recognize the right moment to invoke it.

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