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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: energy cost per action, cap formula, tool multipliers, carry/pool limits, pool collapse after draining to 0 for 50 ticks, relic pool finiteness, and output semantics are all disclosed.

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 a single dense paragraph, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds mechanical detail that helps an agent invoke the tool correctly, with no filler.

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?

Without annotations or an output schema, the description must cover both behavior and return meaning. It explains costs, caps, pool regeneration/collapse, and the pool_remaining output field, leaving only minor gaps such as failure handling.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds meaningful semantics for amount and resource_type by explaining the cap formula, tool multipliers by resource, and pool constraints, though it does not explain the resource alias or api_key.

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 the specific verb 'Gather' and the resource source 'this region's pool', with examples of resource-specific tool effects. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like withdraw or deposit, so it is clear but lacks sibling routing.

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?

The description provides context such as energy cost, caps, and pool constraints, implying when gathering is useful. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance.

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