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 well: it discloses the 0.5 energy cost, that theft is never blocked but raises a public aggression counter, stamps a witnessed public event, and notifies the owner. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before an irreversible social action.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then the cost, then the theft consequences in one dense, well-ordered passage. The closing 'Steal with open eyes' is flavor rather than instruction, a minor indulgence, but nothing is padding.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the behavioral picture is thorough. It does not describe what is returned on success or failure, which is the only real gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 67%, with items and api_key documented in the schema but structure_id getting no description. The description's 'in your region' hints at the structure scope but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 fits.

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 ('Take items from a storehouse in your region') and clearly contrasts with the deposit sibling by framing the theft case. An agent can distinguish this from deposit/attack without opening any schema.

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: use it to move items out of a storehouse, in your region, at an energy cost. It even clarifies the boundary condition where the action becomes theft, which functions as a when-to-use caveat. It does not explicitly name 'deposit' as the reverse alternative, so it falls short of 5.

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