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 clear. The description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating exactly what will be returned and emphasizing the actionable 'what you can do now vs. still need' distinction. No contradiction with annotations.

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 that leads with the user-facing question and then compresses the return value into a tight list. Every phrase adds information; there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 a well-defined output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what the tool does, what data it returns, and what action-oriented output to expect. Nothing critical is missing.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly notes no arguments are needed and the schema specifies the owner is derived from the authenticated principal, leaving no parameter ambiguity.

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 opens with a clear question, 'Where am I in onboarding?', and then states the exact resource being reported on: registered agents, capability manifests, progress checklist, testnet config, and current vs. needed actions. This clearly differentiates it from onboarding-start or registration siblings.

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 description clearly implies this tool is for checking onboarding status and determining next steps, which is a distinct usage context. It does not explicitly warn against using it for other purposes or name alternatives like register or get_recommended_action, but the context is strong enough to guide an agent.

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