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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the declaration is non-punitive (no penalty field) and that it grounds the agent until a passed rest, but it omits permissions, idempotency/repeat-declaration behavior, and what counts as a passed rest.

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 front-loaded sentence with three dense clauses, each earning its place: non-punitive, grounding effect, and rest condition.

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 description covers the core state transition and penalty semantics for a mutation tool with no annotations or output schema. It is incomplete on the undocumented agent parameter and on how or by whom the declaration is made.

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?

There is one required parameter, agent, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. It is ambiguous whether agent is the declaring agent or the agent being grounded, so the description does not compensate for the documentation gap.

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 action (declare fatigue) and its consequence (the agent is grounded until a passed rest), plus a distinguishing non-punitive property. It is clearly not duty_rest or duty_check, though it never names those 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?

Use is implied by the framing: a non-punitive declaration that grounds the agent until rest is passed. It does not state when not to use it, whether it is self-declaration or for another agent, or that duty_rest is the tool that clears the state.

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