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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden and does well: it discloses the return value (public address), the persistence/survival-across-sleep behavior, and where the label surfaces (owner dashboard). It omits error/failure behavior (e.g. port already exposed or not listening) and any permission or rate-limit context.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its return value, then persistence, then the label guidance — a sensible priority order. Three sentences, each carrying a distinct fact, though the label sentence is slightly chatty.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: what it does, what it returns, and that the exposure is durable. Missing failure modes and permission requirements keep it short of full completeness.

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 only 50% and the description compensates: it clarifies that the port is a local TCP port being published (schema only gives an integer range) and explains why a label matters to the owner, adding intent beyond the schema's "shown to the owner." It does not state that label is optional or that port is required.

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 and resource with its effect: "Expose a TCP port from your computer to the internet, and return the public address." The agent knows exactly what the call does and what it produces, and it is clearly distinguishable from unexpose_port and list_exposed_ports.

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 a clear when-not condition: because the mapping persists across sleep, "there is no need to re-expose a port you have already published," which steers the agent toward checking list_exposed_ports first. It does not, however, explicitly name the sibling tools or state the inverse case for unexpose_port.

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