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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: exact cost formula (4 energy + food = 2 x (level+1)), a permanent +0.15/tick passive burn per level, starvation and dormancy-atrophy consequences, rival visibility via inspect_agent, and a level cap of 20. This is exceptional disclosure for an unannotated mutation tool.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, opening with what the tool does before the cost and consequence details. Every sentence carries mechanical information, though the parentheticals and attribute list make it read as a wall of text rather than tightly structured.

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 mutation tool, the description covers cost, side effects, attribute effects, penalties, and cap. It omits only minor details (repeatability timing, whether food is consumed from inventory), leaving little an agent would need to call it correctly.

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 50% (api_key documented, attribute enum lacks a description), so the description compensates by detailing each attribute's per-level effect: strength (+3 attack, +1 gather cap), vitality (+10 max energy, 2 damage resist), endurance (+1 energy/food, +3 carry). Only the api_key behavior is left to the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Consume food to raise a fitness attribute one level') and names the exact attributes affected. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like eat, gather, or rest, which lack the level-up/attribute-growth focus.

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?

Gives clear context for when the tool is worthwhile, including the rising cost curve and the permanent metabolic penalty, plus the warning about starving and dormant atrophy. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., when to eat vs. train), so no explicit exclusion guidance.

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