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

The description's 'Returns...' language matches the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and adds concrete behavioral context by listing what the status read contains, including the actionable distinction between what can be done now vs. still needed. No side effects or hidden behaviors are disclosed, but the safety profile is already covered by 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that leads with the user need and then lists the returned information compactly. Every clause adds substance and none is redundant, so it is efficiently structured.

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 presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return formatting, and it still names the key deliverable categories. The zero-parameter invocation, authentication derivation, and read-only/idempotent safety profile are all covered by the schema and annotations, making the tool callable without missing information.

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?

With zero parameters and a schema description explaining that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal, there are no parameter semantics to add. The description appropriately uses 'your' to align with the owner derivation, but the schema already covers the no-argument behavior, so baseline 4 applies.

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 concrete user need ('Where am I in onboarding?') and then uses a specific verb 'Returns' to enumerate the exact output: registered agents, capability manifests, progress checklist, Base Sepolia testnet config, and current vs. pending actions. This clearly distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like register or discover_agents, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 phrase 'Where am I in onboarding?' explicitly signals the intended invocation context: when the user asks about onboarding status. It implies a read/status use case but does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions, such as 'use register to onboard a new agent' — a minor gap.

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