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

Annotations cover only safety flags; the description adds substantial context beyond them: TTL default 10 min (max 60), collection limits (3 default, max 10), a security warning against relaying secrets, the payment model (profile_key or x402 prepaid), and the exact return fields including owner_ticket.

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-loads the core action and the example code, then layers usage, limits, security, and payment in compact sentences. Slightly dense but every sentence carries decision-relevant information; nothing is 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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: when to use it, the alternative for sensitive data, expiry/collection limits, payment handling, and the shape of the return (code, url, say_this, owner_ticket).

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, but the description reinforces key parameter semantics by restating the 10-minute/60-minute and 3/10-collection limits and explaining the receiver-side implications (link previews consuming a collection). It doesn't add syntax beyond the schema, so not a 5.

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+resource+mechanism: hand text or a file to another AI app/session via a short speakable code that is also a URL. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings anthill_store (for secrets) and anthill_retrieve (the receiving side).

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?

Gives a concrete use case ('a person moving work between AI assistants') and names the alternative with the condition that selects it: 'for sensitive data use anthill_store with encrypt=true instead.' Also explains the receiver path for both connected and unconnected agents.

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