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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the seal-verification ordering (before billing and before world evaluation), the billing cascade trial → Fleet inclusion → x402, where the payment goes, and the 402 error-result shape. It does not cover idempotency or whether a refused wake has side effects, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, which is good. The rest is a single run-on built from semicolons and em-dashes that packs the billing cascade and the return statement together, making it harder to scan than a short structured list would be.

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 five-parameter tool with deeply nested objects and no output schema, the description does well on behavior and return shape (wake briefing plus verdict-distribution receipt). It falls short on the input contract: two required params and the capsule/capsule_id split are left for the agent to guess.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and only partly does: it explains the presented world descriptor and alludes to a capsule and the x402 header. The required integer wake_day is never explained, and the distinction between capsule (inline object) and capsule_id (string) and the role of run_deferred are entirely undocumented.

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: "Run the wake gauntlet for a capsule against a presented world descriptor," which is concrete enough for an agent to know what is being invoked. It anchors itself to POST /wakes, but never distinguishes itself from the sibling hib_execute_wake, which is the obvious collision case given the near-identical naming.

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?

Usage is only implied: the billing cascade tells an agent that a paid wake needs an X-PAYMENT header and that no cover/payment yields a 402 error, which is actionable. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no routing between this, hib_execute_wake, or hib_run_deferred.

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