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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: it explains that the tool tells the agent whether to create or join a mesh, which is a decision aid that isn't captured by annotations. It doesn't repeat annotation info, which is appropriate.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence defines the tool's core function, and the second delivers usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and the critical instruction to use it first is front-loaded.

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?

For a parameterless status tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: it explains what the tool does, how it fits into the workflow, and what actions to take based on the result. The output schema handles return format, so nothing 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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. According to the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate because there is no parameter information to add, and the description doesn't need to explain any.

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 states a clear, specific purpose: it shows whether the current machine belongs to an agent mesh, and defines what a mesh is. It distinguishes itself from sibling agent_* tools by positioning it as the initial status check, making it unambiguous for an agent to understand its role.

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 instructs the agent to use this tool first before any other agent_* tool, and explains the two possible outcomes (create a mesh or join one with a pairing code). This provides direct, actionable guidance that leaves no ambiguity about when and how to use it.

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