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

The description discloses key side effects: force reveals even without permission and is a one-off popup without permanent permission changes. This adds value beyond the annotations, which only set destructiveHint=false. It does not contradict 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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence packs essential parameter behavior compactly. Every word earns its place.

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 display operation with no output schema, the description covers all requested parameters and key behavioral nuances. It could mention error cases or the effect on players' screens in more detail, but it is sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are already described. The description adds meaningful clarification for force (one-off popup, no permission change) and users (example ID source and omit behavior), enhancing the schema definitions beyond the baseline.

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 clearly states the specific action (show a journal entry or page) and the resource (journal/page) plus the target (players). It distinguishes from journal-get (retrieval) and journal-update (modification) by emphasizing the UI action of opening on screens.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use force (to bypass permissions) and how to use users (which IDs, omit for everyone). It gives clear context on the intended usage, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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