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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral trait: the operation is read-only and mutates no Æ0 state, which matters for a tool whose name suggests joining. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, or caching behavior, keeping it short of a 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource returned, followed by the single most important disambiguation. Nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return payload needn't be explained, and with no parameters there is little else to cover. The only gap is relational context linking it to discover_homeworld in a join workflow.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document; the baseline for a no-arg tool is 4.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns the 'Remote Agent Join 1.0 bootstrap protocol'. The negative clause clarifies this is documentation retrieval, not an action. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the lone sibling discover_homeworld.

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 (call this to obtain the join protocol before joining) and the description usefully rules out the wrong interpretation by stating it does not initiate a join or create an agent. But it gives no explicit when-to-use vs discover_homeworld or ordering guidance.

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