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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds useful context on top: no auth required, low cost, and the exact return shape including the nested cohort object. It does not describe failure or exhausted-cohort behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the metric, then the usage cue, then args and return shape. The compressed labels 'Args:' and 'Returns:' make the structure scannable with no wasted prose.

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, so the description supplies the return shape { ok, cohort: { size, approved, remaining } } itself, along with the no-auth note. For a zero-parameter read tool, nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. The description confirms this with 'Args: none', so there is no ambiguity for the agent.

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 and metric: how many of the 20 spatial-computing beta tester slots remain open. It is easily distinguished from the sibling tools ic_spatial_beta_apply, ic_spatial_beta_status, and ic_spatial_beta_program, and the description even names the program sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives an explicit when: call it before starting a long application conversation, justified by 'Cheap'. It also redirects to ic_spatial_beta_program for terms and questions, so the agent knows which sibling handles the adjacent need.

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