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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-open-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming the returned fields: creation date, worker, process, and increment. It does not describe invalid-ID handling or error behavior, but that is a minor gap for this simple decoder.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the primary result first and then the additional decoded fields.

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 read-only decoder with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains the return fields, though it could mention sibling routing or invalid-input behavior.

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 the single id parameter is already documented with an example. The description adds meaning by clarifying that the ID may be a Discord user, message, channel, or server snowflake, which is useful beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource: getting the creation date from a Discord snowflake ID, and it lists the ID types it accepts. It is clear, but it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling discord_timestamp.

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 is implied by the purpose: use this when you need the creation date or internal fields of a Discord snowflake. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison with the sibling discord_timestamp.

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