onboarding

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this—it doesn't explain what 'onboarding' entails (e.g., setup steps, permissions, or side effects). Since annotations cover safety, the description adds minimal value, meeting the baseline for tools with annotations.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and directly addresses usage, making it highly concise and well-structured for its purpose.

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 0 parameters, annotations (readOnlyHint), and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on what 'onboarding' involves (e.g., process steps or outcomes), leaving gaps in understanding despite structured data. This meets the minimum viable threshold.

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, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied for zero-parameter tools, as there's nothing to compensate for.

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 'Call if onboarding not yet performed' is tautological—it restates the tool name 'onboarding' without specifying what the tool actually does. It doesn't provide a clear verb+resource combination (e.g., 'initiate onboarding process' or 'check onboarding status'), leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's function beyond its name.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'if onboarding not yet performed.' This provides clear context for invocation. However, it doesn't specify alternatives or exclusions (e.g., what to do if onboarding is already performed), which prevents a perfect score.

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