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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description layers on genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot express: force=true bypasses Foundry permissions, it is a one-off popup, and permissions are left unchanged afterwards. It stops short of stating whether re-showing is safe or how 'force' interacts with the target users list.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the permission-override caveat, then parameter semantics. No filler or redundancy.

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 four-parameter tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description closes the remaining gaps: the effect of force, the audience default, and the ID provenance for users. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description exceeds it by supplying provenance for 'users' (Foundry user IDs, i.e. authorId from chat-list) and the 'omit for everyone' default, plus the one-off semantics of 'force' — details the schema text alone does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb (Show) and resource (a journal entry or one page) plus the target audience ('on the players' screens'), which cleanly separates it from the read-oriented journal-get/journal-page-get siblings. An agent can tell this is a presentation/broadcast action rather than a data fetch without consulting any schema.

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 audience ('players screens') implies when to use it, but there is no explicit when/when-not statement and no sibling named as the alternative (e.g. journal-get for agent-side reads). Guidance is inferable rather than stated.

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