get_onboarding_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what data is returned but doesn't cover critical behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, error conditions, or side effects. The description is informative about output content but lacks operational context.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, bulleted return values, and specific usage guidance—all in just 4 sentences. Each sentence adds value, though the bulleted list could be more integrated into the narrative flow. Overall, it's appropriately concise without being overly terse.

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 that an output schema exists (which covers return values), the description's focus on what data is returned is somewhat redundant. However, for a tool with 3 parameters (0% schema coverage) and no annotations, the description should do more to explain parameter meanings and behavioral context. It's adequate but has clear gaps in parameter documentation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters, the description provides no information about what 'product_slug', 'session_id', or 'client_id' represent, their formats, or how they relate to the onboarding process. The description mentions 'product/session' but doesn't explain these specific parameters, leaving significant gaps in understanding how to properly invoke the 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to return a 'canonical onboarding progress view' with specific data points like current phase and next required action. It distinguishes itself by focusing on recovery scenarios for partial/failed onboarding runs, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools like 'get_onboarding_prompt_pack' or 'run_full_agentic_onboarding'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'for recovery if a previous onboarding run was partial or failed.' This gives clear context for its primary use case. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools like 'get_onboarding_prompt_pack' or 'submit_onboarding_artifacts'.

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