setup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does substantial work: it warns that sending 'may wake a peer and consume usage', ties sending to a 'human-authorized scope', and adds the important caveat never to infer delivery from registration or a socket write. It still omits failure behavior, reversibility, and what a successful check returns.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the zero-argument case, followed by the two conditional modes and a closing guardrail. Every sentence carries information; the only soft spot is the undefined phrase 'human-authorized scope'.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should describe what each mode returns — what the dependency check reports, what 'both read receipts' verified actually looks like. It covers invocation well but leaves the result semantics underspecified.

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 0%, so the description must define all four parameters. It meaningfully explains 'to', 'scope' (human-authorized), and 'probe_id' (verify both read receipts), and by omission implies all are optional, but 'sender' is never mentioned at all.

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 gives specific verbs and resources for each of three operating modes: dependency/registration check, one real setup challenge send, and read-receipt verification. The mode-based purpose is clear, but no sibling tool (e.g. send_message, message_status) is named, so the boundary between 'setup challenge' and ordinary messaging must be inferred.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent by argument shape: no args for local checks, 'to' plus human-authorized scope to send, 'probe_id' to verify receipts. What's missing is any exclusion or named alternative — it never says when to prefer send_message or message_status instead.

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