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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the result is random and returns a 'labeled strategy card' meant to shift perspective. This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps set expectations for invoking the 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 description is front-loaded with the main action, but there is noticeable redundancy: 'Use when too much in your head' overlaps with 'physical, sensory, body-based approaches' and 'Best for grounding abstract work in physical reality.' The content is helpful but not every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it explains when to use it, what kind of result to expect ('labeled strategy card'), and how it helps ('break through blocks'). It does not detail the exact card format, but that is not essential for correct invocation.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter ambiguity to compensate for. The description appropriately focuses on behavior and use cases rather than parameter details.

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 leads with 'Get a random Embody strategy', specifying a clear action and resource. It also differentiates this tool from siblings like disrupt or expand by naming physical, sensory, body-based approaches as the domain, so an agent can identify which category tool to call.

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 use conditions: 'Use when too much in your head, experiencing physical tension, or disconnected from intuition' and 'Use this when: physical, sensory, body-based approaches to creative problems.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative tool, but the context is clear enough for selection among siblings.

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