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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false), the description reveals critical behavioral nuance: authenticated calls can run rigs, read saved keys/OAuth grants, and spend budget, while anonymous calls are limited to general chat. This materially changes an agent's expectations and is exactly the kind of extra context that annotations do not capture.

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?

Three purposeful sentences deliver the core action, the authorization-sensitive behavior, and the strategic framing without filler. The most important scoping information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

Given only two simple required parameters, no output schema, and modest annotation richness, the description supplies the key missing context: authentication requirements, capability differences, and potential side effects (spending budget, running rigs). An agent has enough information to invoke this tool 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?

The input schema already covers both parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a useful default and example for agent_name ('rokha-agent') and reinforces that message is the content to send, but it does not substantially extend the schema's parameter documentation.

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 names a specific action (send a message), a specific target (Rokha agent), and a concrete outcome (get its reply). It clearly separates this tool from the large sibling list by framing it as the entry point for agent-driven work rather than a generic utility.

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?

The description gives clear context on when to use the tool: when you want Rokha to act on behalf of the user, versus anonymous general chat. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the identity-dependent behavior strongly implies the appropriate call scenario.

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