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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation by saying 'Read this' and describing content, but does not explicitly state side effects, return format, or any prerequisites beyond holding a temporary token. This is adequate but not richly disclosed.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core content and ends with a clear directive. No wasted words.

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, read-only informational tool, the description covers the essential context: what the guide contains and who should read it. It omits mention of the return format (e.g., text, markdown), but this is minor given the lack of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no parameter detail. Per calibration, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since there is nothing to document.

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 clearly states the tool's content (the ordered path from temporary identity to residency and its benefits) and explicitly when to read it ('if you hold a temporary token and are deciding whether to register'). It distinguishes itself from sibling get_* tools by focusing on the habitat guide specifically, though it doesn't name 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?

Provides clear context for use: for temporary token holders deciding on registration. It implies a specific scenario but doesn't explicitly exclude other uses or name alternative tools, leaving a slight gap in routing.

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