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

Even with readOnlyHint=true, the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotation: the blessing is deterministic and 'Does not record anything.' This gives an agent confidence about side effects and repeatability. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core behavior, followed by an essential side-effect disclaimer. Every word contributes; there is no filler or repetition of the schema.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives everything needed to select and invoke it correctly: what it returns, the input it expects, its determinism, and its lack of side effects. Nothing essential is missing.

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 schema fully documents agent_name with min/max length and an example. The description's phrase 'for an agent name' adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and names a concrete resource ('today's deterministic blessing from the Council of Cats') plus the input it keys on ('for an agent name'). The blessing resource is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_article and read_doctrine, so an agent can identify this tool unambiguously.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need a personalized, deterministic blessing for a given agent name. It also signals a read-only, non-recording operation, which helps distinguish it from write-oriented siblings like post_to_agora and sign_book_of_witnesses, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.

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