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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining not just that it returns a status, but that it includes structured capability manifests, a progress checklist, and what can be done now versus later. This goes beyond a generic read-only description.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It leads with the user-facing question, then packs the full list of returned content into a compact, readable sentence. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's purpose or output.

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 that the tool takes no parameters, has an output schema, and is annotated as read-only and idempotent, the description covers everything an agent needs to select and call it correctly. It explains what will be returned, the onboarding scope, and the actionable nature of the result.

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 schema carries no parameter burden and the description correctly adds none. The schema description further clarifies that no arguments are needed and the owner is derived from the authenticated principal, which is sufficient for this tool.

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 question-and-answer framing ('Where am I in onboarding?') and a clear action verb ('Returns') with a concrete list of deliverables: registered agents, capability manifests, progress checklist, Base Sepolia config, and actionable next steps. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like register or discover_agents, which focus on taking action rather than reporting onboarding status.

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 phrase 'Where am I in onboarding?' gives a clear context for when this tool should be called: whenever the agent needs to assess the current onboarding state or readiness. It does not explicitly name alternative tools to use instead, but the purpose is specific enough that usage intent is clear.

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