check_onboarding_performed

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying this should be called 'before starting work', suggesting it's a prerequisite check that might affect subsequent operations. This goes beyond what annotations provide by explaining the tool's role in workflow sequencing without contradicting the read-only nature.

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 extremely concise with just two short sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first states what the tool does, the second provides usage guidance. There's zero wasted language, and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose immediately clear. This is an excellent example of efficient communication.

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 this is a simple status-check tool with no parameters, read-only annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description provides sufficient context. It explains the purpose and when to use it, which covers the essential information needed. The only minor gap is lack of differentiation from the 'onboarding' sibling tool, but overall completeness is good for this complexity level.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. It appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and usage rather than parameter details, which is correct for a parameterless tool.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'Check onboarding status', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling 'onboarding' tool, leaving ambiguity about whether this checks if onboarding was performed versus performing onboarding itself. The purpose is understandable but could be more specific about what 'onboarding' refers to in this context.

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 provides clear usage guidance with 'Call before starting work', which explicitly states when to use this tool. It doesn't mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear for a tool with no parameters. The guidance is practical and directly applicable to workflow sequencing.

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