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 covered. The description adds meaningful context about what the tool reveals (agents, manifests, checklist, testnet config, current capabilities vs. pending items) without contradicting any annotation.

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?

Two sentences with no redundant content. The interrogative framing is slightly unconventional for a tool description but efficiently sets the usage context, and the second sentence packs a complete list of return contents. Minor prose flourish costs a point against a perfectly terse alternative.

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-parameter read-only status tool with rich annotations and an output schema present, the description is fully sufficient. It conveys the scope, the return payload categories, and the practical takeaway ('what you can do now vs. still need'), leaving no critical gap.

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?

With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4. The schema description already explains the one relevant semantic point ('the owner is derived from the authenticated principal'), so the description correctly does not repeat parameter information. Nothing is missing.

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') plus a clearly delimited resource ('onboarding status') and enumerates the exact contents: registered agents, capability manifests, progress checklist, Base Sepolia testnet config, and actionable next steps. This is unmistakably distinct from the sibling tools (e.g., register_agent, check_earnings), even though no sibling is named.

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?' provides clear contextual guidance for when an agent should call this tool: whenever the user asks about onboarding status or what they can do next. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but given its unique scope among siblings, the context is sufficient.

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