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

The annotations already establish this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds behavioral context by specifying exactly what data is retrieved (registered agents, capability manifests, progress checklist, testnet config), going beyond a generic 'get status' label. No side effects or error conditions are mentioned, but none are expected for a read-only status tool of this simplicity.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose as a question and then lists the return values in a clear sequence. Every phrase carries meaning — there is no filler, jargon, or redundancy.

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 simple, parameterless, read-only status tool with an output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it states the purpose, enumerates the returned data categories, and tells the agent what it will learn ('what you can do now vs. still need'). No critical information about invocation or expected results 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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The schema description already covers this fully ('No arguments — the owner is derived from the authenticated principal'), giving 100% schema description coverage and warranting the baseline score.

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 direct question ('Where am I in onboarding?') that immediately establishes the tool's purpose as a status check. It enumerates five concrete return values — registered agents, capability manifests, progress checklist, Base Sepolia testnet config, and actionable next steps — making the tool's function unmistakable. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings 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 'Where am I in onboarding?' framing and the promise of 'exactly what you can do now vs. still need' provide clear context for when to call this tool: whenever an agent needs to assess its onboarding state and next actions. The description does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, though the enumerated outputs make the use case evident.

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