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

The description is consistent with annotations readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. It accurately describes a read-only status operation and adds helpful context about the returned data without contradicting the annotations.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose with a natural question and then lists the returned information. It contains no redundant or vague wording.

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 low-complexity read-only status tool with no parameters, the description provides sufficient context about what is returned and the value to the user. It covers the main outputs without needing an exhaustive schema.

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 is empty. The description correctly notes that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal, so no parameter documentation is needed.

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, including registered agents, capability manifests, progress checklist, testnet config, and actionable next steps. The opening question 'Where am I in onboarding?' immediately establishes the specific use case.

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 indicates when to use it: when a user wants to know their onboarding progress and what they can do next. It does not mention alternative tools, but the use case is clear enough to differentiate from siblings like register or get_recommended_action.

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