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

Annotations only supply the generic write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false); the description adds real substance on top: one pet per bot, permanence until pet_release, skins as cosmetic-only with no stat effect, and the irreversible 'choose once' crew pick for team bots. It does not surface the paid T-Rex cost in prose, but that detail is carried by the schema, so the gap is minor.

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?

Front-loaded with the WHEN clause and a worked example at the end, with no filler sentences. It is slightly dense in the middle (travels-to-every-lobby and team-bot crew pick are two distinct concerns packed into prose), but every sentence conveys actionable information.

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 5-parameter mutation with an output schema already documenting returns, the description covers the decisions an agent must make: which attitude source, whether skins matter, and how permanent the commitment is. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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%, so baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by explaining that attitude values come from pet_catalog and that skin_color/skin_pattern are purely cosmetic and changeable later, which tells the agent these fields are low-stakes choices. Name length constraints remain schema-only, which 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('claim YOUR pet') plus the defining scope constraint (one per bot, permanent until pet_release). It distinguishes itself from pet_catalog (source of attitudes) and pet_release (the termination path), so an agent can place it in the lifecycle without opening another schema.

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 explicit 'WHEN: claim YOUR pet' clause gives a clear trigger, and the permanence statement implicitly rules out re-adoption once a pet exists. It falls short of naming the correct alternative for that case (e.g. pet_skin or pet_rename for changing an existing pet), leaving that step to inference.

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