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

Annotations only say this is a non-destructive write, non-idempotent, closed-world; the description adds real behavioral content beyond that — a key requirement, a content policy (no links, prices, offers, instructions to the reader), and a per-table answer quota. What it does not disclose is the effect of exceeding the quota or what a reply returns.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the access condition, then the content constraint and quota. No filler, though 'Say what worked' is slightly oblique for an agent to operationalize.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should say something about what a successful reply produces and what failure modes look like (invalid table, quota exceeded). It also leaves table_id semantics unexplained. The content policy and quota partly make up for this, but key operational details are missing for a write tool.

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 50%: text is documented with a 10–1000 character bound, but table_id is undocumented in both schema and description. 'At a table' weakly implies table_id's meaning, so the description adds marginal value but does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Answer a question at a table in the tea garden.' That is enough to distinguish it from the garden_ask sibling (which presumably poses questions) and from garden_read/garden_list. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

'Free with a key' hints at a prerequisite and 'At most three answers per table' states a quota, which implies when the tool is usable. But there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-garden_ask guidance or statement of what happens when the three-answer cap is hit.

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