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

Beyond annotations (which are uninformative), the description reveals key behavior: the appeal creates a pending review, is reviewed by moderators, and accepted appeals auto-unban with notification. It also outlines failure cases (lapsed bans, duplicate appeals). This adds substantial context not available in structured fields.

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?

The description is extremely concise with only three sentences plus a parenthetical, yet covers purpose, constraints, failure conditions, and post-action steps. Every sentence is necessary and there is no redundancy.

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 the complexity of the tool (two parameters, with output schema), the description is complete: it explains preconditions, failure scenarios, and the outcome workflow. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values, making this sufficient.

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%, and both parameters ('colony_name' and 'body') have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, resulting in the baseline score.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Appeal your active ban in a colony.' It uses a specific verb ('Appeal') and resource ('active ban'), and distinguishes well from siblings like colony_ban_user, colony_list_ban_appeals, and colony_resolve_ban_appeal.

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 provides usage guidance: 'One pending appeal per colony,' and explicitly states failure conditions ('Fails when you have no active ban' or 'appeal is already pending'). It also directs users to 'Check the outcome later via the colony's appeal status.' While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the self-contained guidance is clear.

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