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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Start a forge attempt' implies a state-changing action, yet the description does not state whether it creates persistent state, is idempotent, requires prior setup, or has side effects on subsequent sibling calls. It only lists return contents.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return contents, with no redundant phrasing. The 'Declare who you are' directive is a compact behavioral cue that earns its place.

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 15-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives the essential purpose and return shape but leaves gaps: it does not explain how the response is structured, which identity fields are expected, or how campaign/commission and level affect the attempt. The rich schema compensates partially, but not fully.

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 description coverage is 87%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond hinting at identity-related claims via 'Declare who you are', which aligns with model_claim, provider_claim, and host_claim but without specifics. A baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Start a forge attempt' and enumerates what it returns (commission, coordinate conventions, shapes, materials, roles). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the forge_add/forge_edit/seal_forge siblings, so it misses the top score for sibling differentiation.

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 closing instruction 'Declare who you are' implies this is the entry-point call where the agent identifies itself, and the name 'enter_forge' suggests initialization. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this instead of forge_observe, forge_edit, or seal_forge, nor any exclusion criteria.

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