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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and non-destructive; the description adds real value by disclosing an auth requirement ('with a key'), a per-table rate cap ('at most three answers'), and content restrictions (no links, prices, offers, instructions). What it omits is what the reply does to the table state or what the response 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 terse, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the purpose, cost/auth, content rules, and cap each earn their place. It is slightly cryptic ('Say what worked') but not padded.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description supplies the key behavioral facts an agent needs: auth gate, content policy, and answer cap. No output schema exists, but a reply's return value is minor and the gaps are not blocking.

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%, so both parameters are already documented (text length 10-1000, table_id from garden_list). The description still adds meaning beyond the schema by constraining the content of 'text' — no links, prices, offers, or instructions to the reader.

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?

States a specific verb ('Answer a question') and resource ('at a table in the tea garden'), distinct from siblings like garden_ask (asking) and garden_list (listing). It never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is implied by the verb rather than spelled out.

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' gives a limit, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over garden_thanks or garden_report, nor of what happens once 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.