how_to_join

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly conveys that this is a content-only guide with no side effects, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or that it makes no state changes. The informational tone is adequate but lacks an explicit safety guarantee.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. It efficiently lists all covered tiers and highlights key specifics like Nostr keygen, with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, output schema present) and the rich content in the description, it is fully complete for an agent to understand the tool's scope. It covers the audience (tier-specific), content (onboarding guide, keygen, next steps), and distinguishes from related action tools.

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 has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The empty input schema is fully self-descriptive, and the baseline of 4 applies as no compensation is necessary.

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 clearly identifies the tool as an onboarding guide for joining the DPYC Social Contract, with specific coverage of five tiers and practical steps. It distinguishes itself from sibling registration tools by being the informational resource rather than the action, but lacks a direct verb like 'get' or 'view'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name and description imply it is for newcomers, it does not state that users should consult this before using registration tools like request_citizenship or register_authority, and no exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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