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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it discloses that accepted health reports are included alongside entered progress rows, and that these records later join the client's timeline upon onboarding.

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?

The description is a single, tightly constructed sentence with no redundant wording. The scope condition and lifecycle behavior are front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 low-complexity, single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context to understand what is returned and why the records are pending. It does not cover return shape or pagination, but those are minor gaps for this tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the sole userId parameter is fully documented in the schema as the client's User _id sourced from list_clients. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies a specific resource (progress rows and accepted health reports) and a precise scope: clients who have not finished app onboarding. It implicitly distinguishes this pending view from normal progress, though it does not explicitly name a sibling such as get_client_progress.

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?

The description gives a clear condition — a client who has not finished onboarding — which implies when this tool applies. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of get_client_progress, list_clients_needing_onboarding, or other related tools, and it offers no exclusions.

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