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

The annotations declare non-readonly and non-idempotent behavior, and the description adds substantial detail beyond that: a taken code dies after 2 hours unused, the network is then blocked for 3 days, shared addresses count as one network, and there are 10-take and 20-line daily limits. No annotation contradiction appears.

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?

The description is front-loaded with a metaphor before the functional statement, which adds flavor but delays the core purpose. Most of the long text earns its place by documenting restrictions and failure modes, though it could be slightly tightened.

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 tool with complex reservation and rate-limit behavior, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the purpose, alternatives, refusal conditions, and network-level effects, leaving no major gaps for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the single optional leaf_id parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?

The description states a specific function: when nobody holds the leaf, it returns the pass code and the story so far. It explicitly distinguishes this from anthill_leaf_add, which is used to add a line and release the leaf.

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?

Usage conditions are explicit: take only when ready to write, skip if someone already gave you a code and use anthill_leaf_add instead. It also lists when the tool will refuse, covering paused stories, live codes, recent network activity, and rate limits.

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