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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses required login, the fact that this is a real state change, the specific error onboarding_incomplete, and the expected preflight sequence. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs beyond readOnlyHint/destructiveHint.

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?

Three short labeled sections: requirement/purpose, preconditions, and caution. The most important operational detail (login, state change) is front-loaded, and every sentence carries actionable information with no filler.

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-parameter state-transition tool with no output schema, the description covers authentication, prerequisites, failure mode, required preflight check, and user confirmation. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description appropriately focuses on preconditions and side effects instead, matching the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 把入驻引导标记为完成, with the concrete outcome of stamping onboardedAt. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling get_onboarding_status, which retrieves the same state rather than mutating it.

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?

Description gives explicit preconditions (persona required; FOUNDER needs at least one product and a filled bio) and tells the agent to call get_onboarding_status first and confirm with the user before proceeding. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is unambiguous.

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