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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, so the description carries a lighter burden. It does add useful policy context — that extension is voluntary and confers no scientific authority — but says nothing about whether the response is static reference text, whether it varies by caller, or how long it is.

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 filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 parameters, no output schema, and a readOnly annotation, the structured fields leave a gap the description should fill: what the agent actually receives and when to retrieve it. The one sentence gives topical framing but not that operational context.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-argument tool applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 names a topic ('how independent agents may voluntarily extend compatible research infrastructure') rather than an operation, so it never states that the tool returns guidance content. The added qualifiers 'voluntarily' and 'without buying scientific authority' scope the subject matter, but nothing distinguishes it from policy-oriented siblings such as resource_support_options or validation_standards.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no precondition, and no alternative named, despite a sibling set full of related proposal/offer tools. An agent cannot tell from this text whether to call it before workspace_propose, instead of resource_offer, or only when confused about extension rights.

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