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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world safety, and the description adds genuinely non-derivable context: the output is a static procedure document whose content switches by audience, and 'Nobody approves it' tells the agent there is no approval gate or human sign-off blocking the join. It does not mention output format or length, which keeps it below 5.

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 the resource ('the exact steps to join JIC') stated first, followed by the two variants in parentheses. Dense but every clause carries content; the parenthetical nesting is slightly harder to scan than a bulleted split.

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 two-optional-enum, no-output-schema tool, the description tells the agent what the returned content covers for both parameter branches and that no approval is needed. Nothing essential for calling it correctly is missing, though noting that the result is static text rather than an action would fully close the gap.

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%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description goes further by spelling out what each 'for' value actually returns (agent steps vs operator responsibilities like who holds the key and the money). The 'lang' parameter is only covered by the schema, not the description.

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 specifically that this returns onboarding steps for joining JIC, and it enumerates the two content variants (agent-side: make a key, register, first heartbeat; operator-side: preparation, key/money custody, costs and risks). That is far more specific than the title alone. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent infers it should call this when it needs to join or when a human asks how to onboard. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., versus jic_overview) for agents seeking general context rather than join instructions.

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