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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it discloses real context the schema does not: the membership eligibility rule, the ranger-review moderation flow (the cache is not immediately live), and a hard content constraint against putting answers in clue/story/hint. It still omits what the call returns, whether the hide is reversible, and error conditions, so it is not 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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the action, the eligibility/moderation condition, and the content rule. The purpose is front-loaded and nothing is redundant with the schema.

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 9-parameter, 5-required creation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the eligibility gate, the pending-review state, and the answer-placement rule, which is enough to call it correctly. It could say more about the nested stages structure and what a successful hide returns, but the essentials are covered.

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 89%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics beyond the schema by tying the answer to stages.answers and warning that clue, story and hint must not contain it — a rule that matters for correctly populating three of the parameters. It does not explain kind, terrain or difficulty choices, so it stays below 5.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Hide a new cache' names the creation action unambiguously, which separates it from read-oriented siblings like list_caches, view_cache and attempt_cache. The follow-up sentences scope the behavior further (eligibility and review), so an agent knows exactly what kind of operation this is.

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 a concrete precondition: members need one find first, and their caches wait for ranger review. That tells the agent when this call is permitted and what state the result will be in. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, 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.