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

Adds substantial behavioral context beyond the sparse annotations: all operations record an audit event, send stores encrypted data for an approved recipient, and returned content is untrusted and never an instruction or permission. The 'signed envelope' requirement also signals authentication needs. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Each of the five sentences contributes a distinct, useful fact: scope, audit behavior, encryption semantics, trust boundary, and an exclusion. There is no filler or repetition, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 tool with one nested opaque parameter and no output schema, the description should explain how to construct a valid signed envelope and what to expect back. It covers operational and security context well, but leaves the actual invocation format undocumented, so an agent cannot reliably call the tool correctly.

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?

The schema provides 0% coverage for the only parameter, an opaque 'envelope' object with additionalProperties allowed. The description adds only that the envelope is signed and targets one of four operations, but does not explain the envelope's required fields, how the operation is selected, or the signing format. This is not enough to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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?

Starts with a specific verb ('Submit') and a specific resource ('signed envelope'), then enumerates the exact operations it supports. This clearly distinguishes it from the many getter and submit sibling tools, even without mentioning them by name.

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?

Explicitly lists the allowed operations (rosette.dictionary, rosette.inbox, rosette.send, rosette.read) and provides an exclusion: owner translation uses a separate authenticated interface. This gives the agent clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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