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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing exactly what the response contains and contrasting 'can do now' vs 'still need', which annotations do not provide.

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?

One dense but well-structured sentence that front-loads the key question and then lists concrete outputs. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 endpoint with an output schema, the description's enumeration of response categories is sufficient for an agent to call it and interpret the result. It also complements the 'what can I do now' need without over-explaining.

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 description carries no burden to explain parameter semantics. The schema description already notes the owner is derived from the authenticated principal, and the tool description correctly focuses on the returned payload.

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') with a clear resource (onboarding status) and enumerates the exact contents returned: agents, capability manifests, a progress checklist, testnet config, and actionable next steps. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like register or discover_agents in purpose.

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?' establishes the clear use case: checking current onboarding progress and what actions remain. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context makes when-to-use unmistakable.

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