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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world write. The description adds real context beyond them: it discloses the audience ('read by the OpenNash team'), a frequency limit, and a PII prohibition with concrete categories. It does not say what the call returns or whether a response is expected, but the output schema covers return values.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then timing, then privacy. Every sentence carries information; no filler or restated title. Slightly dense with constraints, but none are redundant.

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?

The privacy, audience, and frequency context is strong, but for a 5-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions the definition should explain what 'impact' and 'category' mean and when to set tool_name. An agent must guess at half the argument surface.

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% across five parameters, yet the description never mentions impact, category, tool_name, or task_completed. It only implicitly describes the required 'message' content, leaving two enum fields and the tool_name field entirely unexplained.

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 ('Tell OpenNash about a problem with these tools') and further scopes it with the content expected: what you were trying to do, what you tried, where it went wrong. Clearly distinguishable from the fetch/search/trends siblings.

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?

Explicit timing ('Call at most once per task, after finishing or giving up') plus an exclusion ('Do not send praise'). This is exactly the when/when-not guidance an agent needs for a side-channel tool that is easy to overuse.

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