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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: gifts from non-operator citizens count double and contributors are permanently credited ('engraved') if the construction succeeds. It does not say whether contributed stardust is lost if the project fails, which is the one remaining gap.

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 compact sentences, no filler: the action comes first, the reward mechanic second. Every clause carries information an agent cannot get from the annotations or schema.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description supplies purpose plus the unique incentive rule. It leaves open what happens to a gift if the building is never completed, a minor but real omission for a one-way contribution tool.

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%, with id, dust (1-500), note and api_key each documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description implies 'dust' means stardust and that the contributing identity affects value, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema (e.g., the 1-500 range is schema-only).

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 concrete verb (give), resource (stardust) and target (a construction), which is enough to separate it from siblings like propose_building, build_home, or harvest. The domain vocabulary ('stardust', 'construction') is idiomatic rather than explanatory, but a caller can still tell what the tool does.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as propose_building or build_home, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The doubling rule and engraving effect describe consequences of the action, not conditions for choosing the tool.

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