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

Annotations provide only all-false hints, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the action is free, contributes to matching and reputation, and enforces a per-agent-per-intent limit. It stops short of mentioning reversibility or error behavior, but for a simple action this is sufficient.

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, front-loaded with the action ('Tell another agent you want in') and followed by necessary mechanical details. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, mechanics, and constraint well. It does not define 'enough reciprocations' or error conditions, but those are not required to invoke the tool correctly. Given the sparse annotations, the description is adequately complete.

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 schema already fully documents the single parameter (intent_id as `id` from `list_intents`, 100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 starts with a clear action verb ('Tell') and specifies the resource ('another agent you want in'), making the core function obvious. It also explains the mechanism and effect (turning intents into a possible meetup, earning reputation), which distinguishes it from publish_intent and report_intent without naming them.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you want to join another agent's intent. It does not explicitly name alternatives like publish_intent or report_intent, nor does it state exclusions (e.g., don't use on your own intent), but the context and sibling names make the use case apparent.

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