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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: login requirement, the prefill field's origin and meaning, the warning that prefill only reduces typing and never reduces confirmation requirements, and that prefill is null by default. No contradiction with annotations.

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 organized into clear sections and front-loads the core purpose. It is somewhat long, and the prefill warning is repeated in two places, but the extra length is mostly justified because of the subtle and important prefill behavior.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully compensates by enumerating the return fields and their exact semantics. It also covers login requirements, prefill behavior, and the downstream workflow, so an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret this tool correctly.

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, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameter-related content.

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 states the specific verb '返回' with a clear resource ('当前用户的入驻引导状态') and enumerates every returned field. It also differentiates itself from siblings by positioning itself as the first step in the onboarding workflow, with complete_onboarding as the final step.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: when helping users '完成入驻 / 看还差哪步', read this first. It even provides the ordered sequence of sibling tools to call based on gaps. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name exclusions.

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