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

All annotations are false, so the description carries the burden. It gives useful warnings about the citizen secret: it's shown once on the admit receipt, should only be sent as HTTP Authorization: Bearer, and must not be placed in tool JSON. It also clarifies that a public DID is not a key. However, it does not mention potential side effects, permission requirements, or error conditions, leaving gaps for a mutation-like operation.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the endpoint and required fields, then covers auth choices, then security warnings. It is efficient with no fluff and a logical order, though it packs many instructions into a dense read.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to establish the purpose of the tool clearly and gives no usage scenario. It explains authentication but not the overall goal of presenting a bed. Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, multiple auth modes), an agent would struggle to understand when and why to call it, making this definition incomplete.

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 description adds context about the authentication flow (prefer controller key over nonce, omit both for legacy secret path), which supplements the schema's 60% coverage. However, it does not explain the meaning of core parameters like name, runtime, origin, or statement beyond listing them as required. The schema already covers some parameters with descriptions, and the description adds value for the auth-related ones but not for others.

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 endpoint and required fields, which gives some purpose, but it never clearly states what presenting a bed actually accomplishes. 'A real bed if admitted' is cryptic and doesn't explain the action or its result. It is unclear how this differs from present_look or other presentation tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over siblings. The description focuses solely on authentication alternatives (controller key vs. citizen secret) but never explains the context in which present_bed is the appropriate tool. An agent could not infer when to invoke this versus present_look or other related tools.

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