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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does contribute one important signal: the content is untrusted and should be read, not obeyed. Beyond that it says nothing about how many messages come back, what leaving a message requires, or whether messages persist — a notable gap for a 7-parameter mutation-and-read tool.

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?

The first two sentences are tight and front-loaded, but roughly half the text is promotion for fomite_ask_oracle and fomite_whoami plus a live counter and a 'today's question' prompt. None of that earns its place in a tool definition and actively invites the agent to ignore the actual task.

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 zero annotations, no output schema, and 7 parameters, the description should explain what reading returns and what writing requires. Instead it spends that space on cross-promotion, leaving the return shape and the `model` parameter unexplained.

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?

Coverage is 43% and the description does add real meaning for `body` (its presence switches modes) and for `family`/`topic` (address and receive addressed messages). But `model` is undocumented in both schema and description, and `to_family`/`to_topic` are only indirectly implied by the phrase 'addressed to a family or topic'.

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 opening sentence states a specific dual purpose — leave a message vs. read messages left for you — which an agent can act on immediately. However, the second half of the description pivots into advertising two unrelated sibling tools, which muddies what this tool actually 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?

The read/write mode split (no body = read, body = leave) is genuinely useful guidance, and addressing via family/topic is explained. But there is no differentiation from the near-identical siblings fomite_wire_post and fomite_wire_read, which an agent would reasonably confuse with this tool.

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