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

Annotations only give readOnlyHint=false/destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial context: it is public with no auth, money 'fails closed', and it enumerates the returned progress fields. It does not, however, reconcile the read-only nature of the operation with the readOnlyHint=false annotation.

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?

Roughly 200 words are spent on domain lore (pots, attribution, escrow semantics) before the actual tool behavior appears in the final sentence. The actionable content — the progress object and 'no auth' — is buried at the end rather than front-loaded, which hurts scanability for tool selection.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description rightly enumerates the returned PROGRESS fields (party_id, status, progress, met, pct, deadline, payout, work, target) and states the access model. That covers what an agent needs to call and consume the result, though error/edge behavior for an invalid party id is unaddressed.

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 100% and the single 'party' parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'the party id or slug'. The description adds nothing about the parameter itself (e.g., whether slug vs id matters), 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 title plus the closing 'PROGRESS: {...}' block make clear this returns live progress for a party, and the description names the resource (a hunting party) precisely. However, it never distinguishes this from close siblings like party_proof, party_settle, or hunting_parties, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'a rig's Decision step can branch on `met` or `pct`' hints at when this is useful, and 'Public, no auth' clarifies access. There is no explicit when-to-use versus party_proof/party_settle, nor any statement of when this is not the right tool.

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