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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. "Without changing it" merely restates readOnlyHint rather than adding new context such as permission requirements or how the status is derived. Consistent with annotations, but adds little.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity shades into under-specification rather than optimal density.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values, yet "proof and first-round status" is too vague to tell an agent what it will actually receive. Combined with an undocumented required parameter, the definition is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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 single required parameter onboarding_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or explains its format/source. With an undocumented required parameter, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a verb ("Returns") and a resource ("proof and first-round status"), but "proof" and "first-round status" are unexplained jargon that don't obviously map to the tool name's "onboarding status." It does not distinguish itself from siblings like begin_app_onboarding or complete_app_onboarding, which also touch onboarding state.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The phrase "without changing it" only implies this is a safe read, which an agent could infer from the name and annotations alone; it never says when to call this versus begin/complete_app_onboarding.

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