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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description aligns with those hints. It adds contextual detail about the authenticated-owner scope and the structured contents of the returned status, which goes beyond the annotation metadata without contradicting it.

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 front-loaded sentence that moves naturally from the user's core question to a compact list of the return payload. There is no wasted wording, tangential detail, or repetition of schema/annotation 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 parameterless, read-only status tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it states the user need, the scope, and the key return categories. Nothing appears missing that would prevent correct invocation or expectation-setting.

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 schema description already states that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. With no parameters to document, the description carries no additional semantic burden beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline-4 expectation.

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 answers a clear question—'Where am I in onboarding?'—and enumerates concrete returns: registered agents, capability manifests, progress checklist, Base Sepolia config, and current vs pending actions. It is unambiguous about the resource being queried, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like discover_agents or get_recommended_action.

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 status-oriented phrasing strongly implies this is the tool to call when an agent needs onboarding progress and immediate next steps. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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