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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial context beyond that: the API key secret is never returned, onboarding state drives a specific in-conversation flow, and view=status reports server/npm versions and auth health. This is real behavioral guidance an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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 default behavior and the 'Call this first' directive are front-loaded, and every clause carries information. There is mild duplication with the schema's own view descriptions, but 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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing returns and does so for both views (user, scopes, workspaces, onboarding step; version, endpoint, auth health, update guidance). Nothing essential for a correct first call 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description goes further by explaining what each view yields and constraining include=api_keys to identity only with the explicit note that the secret is omitted. It stops short of describing the fields returned within identity, so it is not a full 5.

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 names a concrete resource (the authenticated user, API key scopes, workspaces, onboarding state) and enumerates exactly what each view returns, so an agent knows precisely what it gets. The only gap is that it never clarifies how this differs from the sibling posterly_status, which plausibly overlaps with view=status.

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?

It gives an explicit ordering rule ('Call this first') and a conditional workflow ('if onboarding.completed is false, walk About you, Connect, Brand voice, and First post IN THIS conversation and do not send the user to /onboarding-v2'). It also defines when to pick view=status over the default identity view.

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