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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the exact returned payload and the personalized nature ('your registered agents', 'what you can do now vs. still need'), which goes beyond what the annotations 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and packs in a precise list of return items without wasted words. It is informative yet compact.

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 has no parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what the tool returns and why it would be invoked. Nothing important is missing.

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 zero parameters, so per the baseline guidance a score of 4 is appropriate. The input schema already states 'No arguments' and that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal; the description's use of 'your' aligns with that without adding unnecessary parameter details.

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 opens with a direct orienting question and then states a specific verb ('Returns') and a concrete resource: the user's onboarding status. It enumerates the contents—registered agents, capability manifests, progress checklist, testnet config, and next steps—which clearly differentiates it from siblings like register or discover_agents.

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 phrasing 'Where am I in onboarding?' provides clear context: use this when the user wants to know their current onboarding progress and what actions are available. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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