get_onboarding_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description aligns and adds valuable context about what status details are returned (steps, brokers, API key, guardrails, next action), enhancing transparency 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 sentence that is front-loaded with the main purpose ('Check current onboarding progress') and lists specifics concisely. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns conceptually. It lists key components but could be more structured. Still, it provides sufficient context for a read-only status tool.

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%. With no parameters to document, the description naturally adds no parameter info, but the baseline for 0 params is 4. No issues.

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 clearly states the tool checks onboarding progress and lists specific items (steps, brokers, API key, guardrails, next action). It distinguishes from siblings like 'start_onboarding' and other getters by focusing uniquely on onboarding 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?

The description implies usage for checking progress but does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives. Among siblings, 'start_onboarding' and 'set_guardrail_preferences' exist, but no reference is made. Guidelines are implied rather than stated.

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