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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is well established. The description adds helpful context about what the report contains, but it does not disclose behavioral details beyond that, such as data freshness, authentication nuances, or whether the returned config could be stale.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately answers 'Where am I in onboarding?' and then lists the return contents in a compact, scannable sequence. Every clause adds value with no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter input, the presence of an output schema, and annotations that fully characterize the safety and idempotency profile, the description is comprehensive. It tells the agent what the tool provides and how to position it within onboarding, leaving no critical gap.

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 zero parameters, and the schema description already notes that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. With no parameters to document, no additional semantic information is needed; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as an onboarding-status query: 'Where am I in onboarding?' and specifies the exact resources returned: registered agents, capability manifests, progress checklist, Base Sepolia config, and current vs. remaining actions. This distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like register, get_recommended_action, and hire_and_execute.

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 opening question 'Where am I in onboarding?' establishes a clear context for when to call this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the status-report framing makes it obvious this is the orientation/checkpoint tool before performing onboarding actions.

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