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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it can return null when none exists or the checklist was dismissed, and it enumerates the status values and fields returned, including auto-setup errors.

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 dense sentences with the primary resource and scope front-loaded, followed by the return shape. No filler, though the second sentence is quite packed.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly carries the burden of describing the return value, including field list, status enum, null case, and counts. This is nearly complete for a single-param read tool; only cross-tool routing 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning. It clarifies that clientId is a User _id, which is genuinely useful, but with a single required string param and no format details beyond that, the value added is modest.

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 specific verb and resource (the onboarding checklist for one client) and scopes it to a single client identified by User _id. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_clients_needing_onboarding by being single-client, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this versus siblings like list_clients_needing_onboarding, dismiss_client_onboarding, or mark_client_onboarding_step. The only condition mentioned is the null case, which describes an outcome rather than when to invoke it.

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