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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns sensations reported in the body map, but does not say what the return shape looks like, whether it lists multiple sensations, or how exhaustive the data is. With annotations carrying safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and where, followed by the contextual trigger. No filler, though the example region names in the description partly overlap the schema's own examples.

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?

A low-complexity one-param read tool with annotations covering safety, and no output schema. The description gives the what and a usage cue, but leaves routing vs. get_feeling_words unresolved and says nothing about output, which is acceptable given no output schema but leaves a selection gap.

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% and the single region parameter is fully documented with examples in the schema. The description echoes a couple of region names but adds no format, case, or lookup guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (returns physical sensations) with scope (one body region of the Surfacing body map) and concrete examples. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_feeling_words, which could also be relevant when someone describes a feeling through their body.

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?

Gives implied usage context ('relevant when someone describes a feeling through their body, e.g., my chest is tight'), which helps an agent recognize the right moment. But it never says when NOT to use it or how to choose between this and get_feeling_words, which is a clear alternative for feeling language.

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