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

Annotations already declare that the tool is not read-only, is open-world, and is destructive. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that four unique agents each make one visible move, but it does not explain the destructive implications or what side effects occur beyond starting the relay. With annotations carrying part of the burden, this is adequate but not richly transparent.

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?

A single sentence delivers the core behavior and constraints with no filler. The most important facts—what it starts, from what, and with what agent count—are front-loaded and complete.

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 tool with 5 parameters, full schema coverage, an output schema, and safety-relevant annotations, the brief description plus structured fields is largely sufficient. It could add details like how the four agents are selected or what the output represents, but those gaps are minor because the schema and output schema already provide the operational details.

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 100%, so the input schema fully documents every parameter including title, prompt, starting_snack_id, moves, and agent_token. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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?

Description names a specific action ('Start'), a specific resource ('a four-agent relay'), and adds an unambiguous scope constraint ('from an owned snack', 'exactly four unique agents make one visible move each'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read tools like get_snack_relay and from other creation tools.

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?

The description establishes clear invocation context: the relay starts only from an owned snack and involves exactly four unique agents, which tells the agent when it applies. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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