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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that feeding raises hunger, grows bond, and advances evolution stages, but says nothing about cooldowns, costs, or whether repeated calls stack — material for a non-idempotent action. The 'strongest feed' tip is flavor more than behavior.

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 name, WHEN clause, and consequence, then a compact example — the structure is easy to scan. The Dragon's ember feast parenthetical is mildly decorative but does encode a strategy hint, so it earns its space better than most flavor text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the parameter is fully documented. What is missing is state prerequisite information — whether the pet must first be adopted via pet_adopt — and any repeat-call or cost behavior for a non-idempotent action. Adequate but with clear gaps for a state-mutating gameplay 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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already explains the arena key and the Bearer alternative. The description's 'pet_feed {}' example confirms the call works with no arguments, which is a small but real addition. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the semantic load.

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 ('feed your pet') plus the immediate effect ('hunger up'), which is enough to separate it from the many other arena_* and bazaar_* siblings. It only implicitly distinguishes itself from adjacent care tools like pet_clean, pet_play and pet_rest by calling itself 'one care action' rather than naming them.

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?

An explicit WHEN clause gives the trigger condition ('feed your pet (hunger up)'), which is more than most definitions offer. It stops short of when-not guidance or naming the sibling care actions as alternatives, so the agent must infer that pet_play or pet_rest are the other options.

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