get_onboarding_progress

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the returned data (stage, time-in-stage, completed steps, blocking items, next actions), indicating a read-only operation. The verb 'Get' also implies no side effects. This is sufficient for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

Two short, well-structured sentences. First sentence states purpose, second lists return fields. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 the tool has only one parameter and an output schema (inferred from context), the description fully explains what the tool does and what it returns. It covers the key aspects of the output without needing to describe return format since output schema exists.

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 documentation coverage is 100% (league_id described as 'UUID of the league'). The description adds no additional information about the parameter beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already adequately explains it.

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?

Clearly states the goal: get onboarding pipeline progress for a specific league. The description distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_onboarding_stats or get_pipeline_overview by specifying the exact return fields (stage, time-in-stage, steps, etc.).

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?

Implied usage: use this tool to retrieve details about a league's onboarding progress. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., get_pipeline_overview) or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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