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

The description explicitly says the tool 'Returns' data and lists the output, implying no side effects. This aligns with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, and there is no contradiction.

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 two focused sentences with no redundant wording. It front-loads the use case and then packs the specific output items into a clear list.

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's simplicity and existing output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when to call it. It covers what is returned and frames the user-facing need.

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?

Although there are no parameters, the description proactively explains the lack of arguments and notes that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. This adds meaningful context beyond the empty schema.

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 names the exact resource: onboarding status, registered agents, capability manifests, progress checklist, testnet config, and actionable next steps. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like register 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 opening question 'Where am I in onboarding?' and the promise of 'exactly what you can do now vs. still need' communicates when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools, but the read-only status nature makes the intended scenario clear.

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