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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that the tool returns a 'labeled strategy card' and that it helps 'shift your perspective and break through blocks,' which is useful context. However, it doesn't disclose details like whether the result is truly random each call or whether there are any side effects, though the readOnly annotation covers the main safety concern.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action ('Get a random Embody strategy') followed by usage guidance. It is slightly repetitive ('Use this when' appears twice), but the overall structure is clear and every sentence adds value.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what the return value is ('labeled strategy card'). The only minor gap is not specifying the exact format or content of the strategy card, but this is not critical for a random strategy generator.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics to clarify. The description compensates by explaining what the tool does and what it returns, which is sufficient for a no-parameter tool. Baseline 4 is appropriate because there are no parameters to document.

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 clearly states the tool returns a random Embody strategy card, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Embody strategy'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the category (Embody) and describing the body-based approach, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools.

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 description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'when too much in your head, experiencing physical tension, or disconnected from intuition' and 'Best for grounding abstract work in physical reality.' It also lists the use case category ('physical, sensory, body-based approaches to creative problems'), which helps an agent select this over sibling categories.

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