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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat safety traits. It adds useful behavioral context by explaining the output is personalized, stateful, and includes actionable next steps, all consistent with 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 compact and front-loaded with the user-oriented question, followed by one efficient sentence listing all returned categories. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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-input, read-only status tool with an output schema and no nested objects, the description fully covers the call's purpose and returned contents. The annotations cover side-effect safety, and the output schema can supply detailed return structure, so nothing crucial 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 the baseline is 4. The schema already documents that no arguments are needed and that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal; the description adds value by explaining what the returned status report contains.

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 clearly identifies the resource: the user's onboarding status. It enumerates a concrete list of returned content (registered agents, capability manifests, progress checklist, Base Sepolia config, available vs. pending actions), which distinguishes it from siblings like discover_agents or register.

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?' plus the progress checklist and 'what you can do now vs. still need' make the intended use case clear. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the use context is unambiguous for a status/checkpoint tool.

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