Apply to contribute

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, and the description is consistent with them: the tool produces a link rather than filing anything, so the actual GitHub issue creation happens downstream. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations — that the resulting application is a PUBLIC GitHub issue reviewed by an editor — which is exactly the kind of disclosure an agent needs before collecting personal details.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the public-issue context, then the fill-in constraint. Nothing is redundant, though the phrase 'joining the list of people of The Intelligence Radar' is slightly awkward and could be tighter.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value and does so by calling it a 'pre-filled link'. It also covers the public-visibility implication of submitting. Minor gaps remain: whether the link is a URL string, whether a GitHub account is required, and how this differs from the sibling how_to_contribute.

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 80% and three of the five fields carry their own descriptions, so the schema already does most of the work. The description adds one non-trivial cue — that every field is effectively optional and only supplied values should be filled — but it does not clarify the format expected for 'links' or what 'None' means for disclosure beyond what the schema says.

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 uses a concrete outcome — a pre-filled link to the application form for becoming a contributor or specialist reviewer — which is more specific than the name alone. It implicitly distinguishes itself from submit_contribution (this is the application step, not a contribution submission), but it never names or rules out the nearby how_to_contribute or submit_contribution tools, so the differentiation is left partly to inference.

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?

'Fill in only what the person gives' is a real usage constraint (do not fabricate missing fields), and the phrase 'or specialist reviewer' indicates the audience. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus how_to_contribute or submit_contribution, and no prerequisites such as whether a GitHub sign-in is expected.

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