Get personalized onboarding state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the content of the read (progress, remaining fields, next prompt), which matters because no output schema exists to convey return shape.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the action first and the returned artifacts second, with no filler or restatement of the title.

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 zero-param read tool with full annotation coverage, the essentials are present, but the description never relates onboarding state to the larger flow or to prepare_advance_onboarding, and "food-personalization onboarding" is left undefined against general onboarding. Adequate, but with a clear gap in workflow context.

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?

Zero input parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description neither adds nor loses anything here.

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?

States a specific verb ("Read") and resource ("food-personalization onboarding progress") and enumerates what comes back: remaining fields and the next assistant prompt. It does not, however, name or contrast itself with the obvious sibling prepare_advance_onboarding, so an agent must infer the read/write split from the naming convention.

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?

There is no stated when-to-use, no precondition, and no reference to the sibling that mutates onboarding state (prepare_advance_onboarding). The read-only framing is implied by "Read" but nothing routes the agent to this tool over the alternatives.

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