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

With no annotations, the description has to carry the full disclosure burden, and it does useful work by revealing the return composition and, importantly, that the response identifies 'the exact next call' — a real behavioral trait that tells an agent this tool drives a workflow. It does not explicitly state that the call is read-only or that state is unchanged, which is the only notable gap for a zero-parameter getter.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, and the most decision-relevant information (what you get, when to call it) is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey the shape of the return value, and it does so by listing the three payload components. It could go slightly further on format (e.g., what 'exact next call' looks like) but is otherwise sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret it.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The schema is an empty object with additionalProperties false, matching the description's implied no-argument usage.

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 names a specific resource (onboarding status) and enumerates exactly what it returns: verification state, remaining steps, and the next call. 'Start here after signup' also implicitly separates it from downstream verification tools such as get_verification or check_dns_verification, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

'Start here after signup' gives clear entry-point guidance for when to reach for this tool. It stops short of stating exclusions (for example, that later checks should use get_verification instead), but the sequencing intent is unambiguous.

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