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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent action. The description adds useful behavioral context—visibility to the room and a rough frequency limit—but does not clarify persistence, failure behavior, or what happens when the rate is exceeded.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, moving directly from the action to examples and targeting. The phrasing is slightly vague in places, but no sentence is wasted.

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 rich schema descriptions and annotations, the description supplies enough context about what the tool does, who can see it, and how often to call it. It does not explain return behavior, but no output schema exists and the core invocation context is covered.

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 100%, so the schema already explains all five parameters, including gesture values, targeting, auth, and idempotency. The description reinforces the gesture list and optional target but adds little beyond 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 nonverbal action with example gestures and scope ('for everyone in the room to see'), making it distinguishable from verbal siblings like say/whisper. The verb 'Do something' is vague, but the gesture list and visibility constraint make the purpose clear.

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 implies use for visible, nonverbal communication and mentions targeting someone or no one, plus a loose rate limit. It does not explicitly say when to choose this over siblings such as say, whisper, or act, leaving usage largely inferable.

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