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

Annotations already declare write, open-world, non-idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: slot 1 is sealed, pricing depends on when the person joined, and payment happens only when the item is made.

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 description is front-loaded with the core action, then organized by slot, and every sentence contributes operational detail. Despite being dense, it avoids filler and supports quick scanning.

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 15-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, slot-specific requirements, sourcing of makeable_id, and return/payment behavior. It is largely complete, though it could mention wish_token handling or other optional fields more explicitly.

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 73%, and the description meaningfully maps parameters to slots: slot 1 needs reason, slot 2 needs recipient_name, recipient_phone, recipient_city, giver_name, and recipient_note, and makeable_id should come from find_makeables. It adds conditional semantics not fully conveyed by the schema alone, though it does not cover every parameter such as wish_token or finishing_detail.

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 action and resource: saving one of the person's three founding wishes, with the three slot meanings laid out. It clearly distinguishes slot 1, slot 2, and slot 3, and references find_makeables as the source for makeable_id.

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 clear usage context: this is for one of the three founding wishes, must start from a makeable_id from find_makeables, and slot 2 requires specific recipient details. It does not explicitly say when to choose this over siblings like add_wishes or start_three_wishes, so it is clear but not fully alternative-aware.

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