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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it requires binding the exact published origin, performs a proof check, and queues a basic round only on success. It stops short of describing what happens on verification failure, what proof is checked against, or auth requirements.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the primary action leads and the success-conditional clause trails it. It is dense with unexplained jargon, but nothing is wasted.

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 verification/state-advancing tool with no output schema and no readOnlyHint, the description should say how success or failure is surfaced and what the agent must supply beyond the URL. It omits failure behavior, return shape, and any permission requirements, so an agent cannot fully anticipate the call's outcome.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and there are no param descriptions, so the description carries the full burden. 'Binds the exact published HTTPS origin' adds some meaning to published_url (it must be the exact published HTTPS origin), but onboarding_id is never explained and neither param's format or source is clarified.

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 gives specific verbs (binds, checks, queues) and a resource (the published HTTPS origin / first basic round), so an agent can tell roughly what it does. However it never actually says it 'completes onboarding', and 'Guarita proof' is project jargon an agent cannot resolve. It also does not differentiate itself from the sibling begin_app_onboarding, leaving the pair's division of labor implicit.

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?

No when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternatives in the sibling set (begin_app_onboarding, get_app_onboarding_status). The sequence 'begin then complete' is only inferable from the tool names, not stated. An agent gets no explicit condition for choosing this over retest_finding or start_scan.

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