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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context: results are newest-first, include how each play ended, and require sign-in, with a defined fallback when unauthenticated.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the core return behavior and authentication condition are front-loaded.

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 single-optional-parameter read-only listing tool, the description covers the key behavioral facts: authentication requirement, ordering, and what each result includes. Minor gaps like pagination or exact return shape are acceptable given the simple schema, though no output schema exists.

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 only parameter, limit, is fully described in the schema with default and bounds. The description adds ordering context but does not enrich limit semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Returns what a signed-in Plot Speaks player has played'), plus scope details: newest first and how each ended. This differentiates it from siblings like list_stories and review_story.

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?

Implies the tool is for viewing a signed-in player's play history, and notes the unauthenticated path tells users how to get an account. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as list_stories or say when not to use it.

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