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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the read-only safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the exact return content—status and completion time per onboarding step—and the relationship to lintConfiguration findings, which is behaviorally useful beyond the 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 a single front-loaded sentence that begins with the core action and then provides a complete list of steps without redundancy or filler. Every element earns its place, including the useful lintConfiguration tie-in.

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 and no parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining return semantics and it does so adequately: it names all steps and the fields returned (status, completion time). It could add details about status value formats or how to interpret missing steps, but the current information is sufficient for most calling contexts.

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 is nothing for the description to add about parameter meanings. The description focuses on what is returned, which is appropriately aligned with the empty input schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a precise resource ('manufacturer's onboarding-wizard progress'), enumerating the exact steps returned. This clearly separates it from siblings like getProductionProgress, which concerns production rather than onboarding.

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 makes the use case clear: it returns onboarding step statuses and completion times, and explicitly links to lintConfiguration findings by noting those findings reference these step ids. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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