get_onboarding_status

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent, closed-world read. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: waitForResearch blocks server-side for ~25s and returns early on completion/failure, and it tells the agent how to handle the next_action field (relay in its own words).

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the blocking-time caveat, then the output-handling instruction. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry return-value semantics, and it only documents next_action. Progress/status fields and what the response looks like otherwise are left unspecified, so the picture is partial for a 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so userId, analystId, and waitForResearch are already documented. The description largely restates the waitForResearch schema text rather than adding format or precedence details, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (check) and resource (expert onboarding progress/status), which is distinct from the many other 'check_*_status' siblings by virtue of the onboarding scope. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with begin_expert_onboarding or expert_onboarding_research, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 implied (call this to see where an expert is in onboarding) and the waitForResearch guidance implies a polling use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or naming of the alternative tools that also report progress.

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