Get onboarding

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already covers safety. The description adds the qualifier 'when configured,' hinting the resource may be absent, but doesn't clarify behavior in that case. This adds some context beyond the annotation but remains minimal.

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 one short sentence with no fluff, but it's under-specified and reads as a fragment. It could be more informative while still concise.

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?

For a simple getter with no output schema, the description should state what is returned and how to handle the 'when configured' case. It doesn't mention return value or the relationship to update_onboarding, leaving significant gaps.

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 single parameter 'guild' is fully described in the schema with usage and default behavior. The tool description adds no parameter information, so the schema carries the full burden. Baseline 3 applies due to 100% schema coverage.

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 identifies the resource (new-member onboarding flow) but lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'update_onboarding' only through the tool name, not the description.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention being the read counterpart to update_onboarding, nor does it specify scenarios like checking if onboarding is configured.

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