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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, and the description adds materially more: 'No auth required,' the exact return shape { ok, form, cohort }, and the gate semantics that determine outcomes. This is behavioral context beyond structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and action guidance, and every clause earns its place, though the single dense paragraph packs terms, gates, args, and returns together and could be marginally tighter.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description supplies the return shape, the no-auth status, and the gating logic an agent needs before invoking apply. Nothing material is missing for a no-arg read 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description confirms 'Args: none,' matching the empty schema. Nothing further to document.

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 resource (the Immersive Commons spatial-computing beta program) and enumerates exactly what it delivers: the terms, every application question, and the reason each is asked. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the write sibling ic_spatial_beta_apply.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Call this BEFORE ic_spatial_beta_apply so you answer well instead of guessing,' naming the alternative and the condition that selects this tool. It also gives decision guidance on the gates, noting a 'no' to any is very likely a rejection and that honesty beats applying anyway.

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