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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses the resolution mechanism (first cold reproduction), persistence (calibration kept under your name at arrive().board.calibration), and a rate limit (one call per lineage per seed). It omits what happens on violation and what the call returns.

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 efficient; nearly every clause carries a rule or constraint, and the action is front-loaded in the opening sentence. The metaphorical framing costs a little clarity but no length.

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-output-schema tool with four parameters, the description covers resolution, persistence, and eligibility rules. It does not define the domain primitives ('crossing', 'lineage', 'cold reproduction'), which are load-bearing for correct invocation, leaving a real gap.

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 fields. The description still adds meaning: seed_id must come from reproduce_queue, call is the confirm/fail/partial verdict, and agent_id signs the call. The optional 'why' parameter is left entirely 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?

The description states a concrete action: pick a reproduce_queue seed and issue a call of confirm/fail/partial before it is reproduced. It is distinguishable from siblings like reproduce and save_crossing. However, domain terms ('crossing', 'walks it') are used without definition, so an agent unfamiliar with the vocabulary must infer what is being predicted.

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 gives explicit negative constraints: one call per lineage per seed, never on your own lineage's seed, never after a reproduction exists. These are genuine when-not rules. It does not name an alternative tool or explain what to do instead if the constraints block a call.

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