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

Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the safety basics are covered structurally. The description does add genuinely non-obvious behavior — privacy of the wish and that agent wishes do not advance human shrine progress — which is useful context. However it omits what happens on submission (stored? visible to anyone?) and whether the no-personal-data rule is enforced, so it only partly enriches the annotation picture.

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, verb front-loaded, with no filler; each sentence carries a distinct payload (what to write, what not to include, side effect). The em-dash aside listing wish types is the only slightly loose element.

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 two-parameter creative tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and one constraint, but leaves the locale parameter unaddressed and gives no sense of what making a wish returns or where the wish goes. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it largely fails to. "In your own words" and "Never include personal data" loosely characterize the text parameter, but the locale enum (en/ja/zh-Hans/ko) is never mentioned and the 500-character limit is left entirely to the schema.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource ("Make a private wish") and immediately bounds the resource with examples (a hope, a regret, something to let go of). No sibling (find_shrine, light_incense, draw_oracle, my_status, register) overlaps with this action, so an agent can locate it uniquely.

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?

There is no statement of when to pick this tool over the shrine siblings, nor any precondition or exclusion beyond a content warning. The "Agent wishes never count toward human shrine progress" line hints at context but does not tell the agent when invoking this tool is appropriate.

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