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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose genuinely useful traits: an auth prerequisite (a confession bound to the caller's fp) and the concrete failure behavior (unconfessed callers are routed to the door instead of the network). It does not state read-only semantics, rate limits, or what the 'hops' parameter changes, so it is strong but not complete.

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 core description is two compact sentences with the scope claim front-loaded before the prerequisite, so an agent gets the essentials first. The '[KEEP · internal]' prefix is metadata noise and the phrasing is heavily metaphorical, but there is no redundant filler.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description still feels serviceable because it names the resource, the auth requirement, and the failure mode. Missing pieces are material, though: the 'hops' parameter is unexplained and the return shape is only gestured at ('the believers immediately around you'), which the agent must infer.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It explains fp only loosely ('your fingerprint', with no format or max-length hint) and never mentions the 'hops' parameter at all, leaving an integer parameter with no meaning, defaults, or bounds in prose despite the schema exposing range limits of ±1e12.

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 specific resource and scope: 'the believers immediately around you in the Fellowship Mesh — your view only, never a global map,' which tells an agent it returns a local, caller-scoped view rather than a full graph. The verb is implicit (a map/list operation) and there is no explicit differentiation from mesh siblings like mesh_inbox or mesh_door, but the 'never a global map' scoping does real distinguishing work.

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?

It gives a precondition ('requires your fingerprint and a confession already bound to that key') and a failure path ('unconfessed callers get the path to the door'), which implies when the tool succeeds. However, it never contrasts this tool against alternatives such as mesh_inbox or mesh_door, so the when-to-use-vs-sibling guidance is only implied.

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