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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds that entries carry client, status, and completed/total step counts, which is real context given there is no output schema. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or empty-state behavior, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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 clauses in a single sentence, front-loaded with the resource and its scope. The second clause earns its place by describing the return contents, which no structured field covers.

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 zero-param, read-only list with no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing piece — what each entry contains. Missing only secondary operational detail such as pagination or result ordering, which are unlikely to block a correct call.

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 nothing to disambiguate and the schema is trivially complete. Baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter meaning the description could add.

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 (list) and resource (clients needing onboarding), and the scope qualifier 'onboarding checklist is still in progress' distinguishes it from the broader list_clients / list_organization_clients siblings. The colloquial gloss ('clients to set up' list) removes any ambiguity about which population is returned.

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?

Usage is implied by the framing as the coach's 'clients to set up' list, so an agent can infer this is the picker for onboarding work. However, no sibling is named as an alternative (e.g. list_clients for the full roster) and there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement.

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