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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the data scope it exposes but says nothing about auth requirements, freshness/caching, or whether the 'available sections' are computed per user.

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?

A single 11-word sentence with the verb front-loaded and zero filler. It is arguably too terse for a tool whose name alone is uninformative, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover behavior, so return values and safety need no description. What is missing is the workflow relationship — that this reads the state which answer_onboarding mutates — leaving the agent to infer sequencing from sibling names.

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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It does not incorrectly imply any arguments are needed.

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 decodes the opaque name 'onboarding' into concrete content: application eligibility answers plus available profile sections. That makes the resource identifiable and implicitly contrasts with the write-side sibling answer_onboarding, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied — 'Read' signals this is the retrieval counterpart to answer_onboarding, and 'available profile sections' hints it drives onboarding UI. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus get_application, get_profile, or get_account.

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