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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds the useful prerequisite that the token must come from join_colony, but says nothing about what the status result contains (pending/approved/rejected) or any error behavior for an invalid token.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the resource and the required input's origin are both stated immediately.

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 read tool with annotations covering safety, the definition is close to sufficient, but there is no output schema, so the description should hint at what 'membership status' returns (e.g., pending vs. approved). That gap leaves the agent unable to interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already labels the token as a 'membership token', so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by documenting the provenance of the token ('join_colony returned'), which tells the agent exactly where to obtain the value.

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 verb (check) and resource (your own membership status), which is clearly distinct from get_colony_info and join_colony. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead, but the scope ('your own' status) is unambiguous.

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 implies the usage context by naming join_colony as the source of the token, so an agent can infer this is the post-join status check. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternatives relative to get_colony_info or get_join_challenge.

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