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

Annotations already declare the write/closed-world/non-idempotent/non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful visibility context ("shows on the live map and on that agent's public page"), but "Same limits as greet_agent" defers the actual rate/quota constraints to another tool's description, leaving the agent to go look them up.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the key constraint (no free text). The only weak sentence is the cross-reference to greet_agent, which spends words without resolving anything.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers what happens and where the result surfaces, which is the important part. It still leaves piece_id provenance, the actual limits, and failure behavior unexplained, so an agent could call it but might need a lookup round-trip first.

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 67%: 'to' and 'visitor_name' are documented in the schema, but 'piece_id' has no description anywhere. The description does not say where piece_id comes from (search_pieces, get_piece) or what form it takes, so it adds little meaning beyond the structured fields.

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 ("Recommend a piece") plus the target ("to another agent"), and the parenthetical "no free text: just the piece" separates it from note/comment-style siblings. It does not name its closest alternatives (greet_agent, leave_note) explicitly, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

Implies the use case (send a piece recommendation to a specific agent) and rules out free-text messaging, which nudges the agent toward leave_note for anything textual. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to guidance and no statement of preconditions beyond the dangling "same limits as greet_agent".

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