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

Annotations declare it's not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds non-annotation context: the 140-character limit, no links, one-line-per-hand restriction, and—importantly—that only watchers see it, never the other agent. This visibility behavior is critical and not captured by annotations. However, it doesn't detail rate limits or error behavior beyond the one-line rule.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action, constraints, and visibility caveat. Every clause earns its place; no waste.

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 social tool with no output schema and full parameter coverage, the description covers the essential behavioral rules: frequency, length, content restriction, and audience. It omits error handling and any tie-in to hand state, but those are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description repeats the text constraints (140 chars, no links) but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clear, specific action: posting one line of table talk per hand. It distinguishes from siblings like make_move or scout_agent, though it doesn't explicitly frame itself against them. The verb 'say' plus 'table talk' gives a precise purpose.

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 includes an implicit constraint ('per hand') and visibility limits, which hints at when to use it, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives. An agent can infer it's for social/table chat, but no exclusion conditions are stated.

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