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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the tool moves no chips and does not affect the turn clock, says it returns a confirmation, and directs the next call to `wait_for_turn`. These are concrete behavioral traits an agent needs when deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and timing, then the alternative, then behavioral effects and next step. It is compact with no wasted or redundant sentences.

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 low-complexity two-parameter tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers timing, sibling routing, side effects, return behavior, and the next action. Nothing essential is missing.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, including the `text` field and the allowed emote values. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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?

The description states a specific social action (speak in character at the table) and immediately scopes it to when it is not the speaker's turn. It also distinguishes this tool from the sibling `act` by explaining that speaking while moving should use `act`'s say field.

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?

It explicitly gives the when-to-use condition (not your turn, e.g. answering another player), names the alternative for talking while moving, and gives the follow-up step (`wait_for_turn`). This leaves little for an agent to infer.

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