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

Annotations already convey idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds valuable beyond-annotation context: the authentication requirement (Candy bearer token), the idempotent retry mechanism, and a clear side-effect boundary ('Canonical reputation and Network Value remain unchanged'). This gives the agent a solid behavioral picture despite the absence of readOnlyHint.

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, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, invocation guidance, and side-effect disclosure. The most important information is front-loaded. No redundancy or filler.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, authentication, idempotency, and side-effect boundaries. However, it omits a definition of memoryId and does not indicate what the tool returns or any error/status semantics, leaving some gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It explains idempotencyKey's role ('retry with the same idempotencyKey') but does not explain memoryId, which is the only required parameter. The central parameter's meaning is left to inference from the tool name, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Record an anonymous sandbox consumption of explicitly public free knowledge.' This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like candy_challenge, candy_start, and candy_get_receipt, and immediately conveys the domain and action.

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 gives procedural guidance ('Use the Candy bearer token and retry with the same idempotencyKey') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The usage context is implied by the purpose but no exclusions or sibling comparisons are provided.

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