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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds nothing about what is actually destroyed or interrupted (current movement/activity), whether teleporting costs resources, or how it behaves on an invalid zone. For a destructive, non-idempotent operation this leaves the agent guessing about side effects.

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?

One short sentence followed by the destination list, with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The list is long but earns its place given the absence of an enum in the schema.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema this covers the main selection risk (valid destination names), but it omits failure behavior and the side effects implied by destructiveHint=true. An agent could pick the right argument yet still be surprised by what the teleport does to its current state.

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 0% and the single zone parameter has no enum, so the description's list of valid values (Farm_DragonValley, Farm_WallOfArgos, etc.) is essential and genuinely compensates for the schema gap. It stops short of specifying case sensitivity, formatting, or what happens if an unlisted name is supplied.

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?

"Teleport to a place by name" gives a specific verb (teleport) and resource (a named place), and the enumerated destination list makes the scope concrete. The phrase "by name" plus the place list implicitly separates it from go_to_player, which targets a player rather than a location.

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 never states when to use this versus go_to_player, autopilot, or game_command, nor any prerequisites such as being in-game, needing a teleport item, or a cooldown. Usage is only inferable from the presence of a destination list.

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