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 thoroughly: it specifies the exact energy gain, the shelter bonus, the once-per-tick cooldown, and the crucial warning that resting without a shelter is a net energy loss versus passive decay. This is exactly the kind of context an agent needs to avoid a fatal mistake.

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 front-loaded with the core effect, then follows with the critical survival caveat and the suggested alternatives. Every sentence is purposeful, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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?

For a no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential mechanics and constraints well enough to call correctly. It does not describe return values or error conditions, but the core decision-relevant behavior is fully explained.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the only parameter (api_key) is fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific action (skip-turn recovery) and states the exact energy effect, including shelter-dependent values and the once-per-tick limit. It distinguishes resting from passive decay and foraging, but does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools such as eat or lounge.

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 provides clear use context: rest for skip-turn recovery, and warns that without a shelter resting is worse than passive decay, so idling is not viable. It offers alternatives (keep foraging or maintain a shelter) but does not directly compare to other available actions.

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