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

The annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description reinforces this by stating it only returns information, with no mention of side effects or mutations.

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, focused sentence that lists all relevant outputs without unnecessary detail or repetition. It is concise and well-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 description enumerates the key return contents (agents, manifests, checklist, config, next steps) and the output schema exists. Given the zero-parameter interface, this provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 explicitly states 'No arguments — the owner is derived from the authenticated principal.' There is nothing more to explain.

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 clearly states the tool returns onboarding status, registered agents, capability manifests, progress checklist, testnet config, and actionable next steps. This is specific and distinguishes it from other onboarding-related tools like register or discover_agents.

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 phrasing 'Where am I in onboarding?' implies when to use the tool, and the description clarifies what it returns. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some room for interpretation.

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