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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the 10-minute hold window and that a hold is followed by a confirm-or-release step, but omits critical traits for a reservation-style mutation: whether a hold is exclusive (does it block other agents from the same dimension?), what happens if the hold expires unconfirmed, whether a secret is required to reclaim the name, and what comes back on success.

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 with the action and its scope front-loaded, then eligibility, then the follow-up action. No filler; the only soft spot is the vague "built something here" clause, which consumes a sentence without resolving the eligibility rule.

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 stateful reservation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the lifecycle (hold → confirm/release) more concretely, including expiry behavior and whether holds are exclusive. It gestures at the lifecycle but leaves the agent unable to predict the consequences of calling it or what the response contains.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (name, secret, dimension) are already documented in the schema, including the 1-11 dimension range and the secret's purpose. The description only restates the dimension cardinality and adds nothing parameter-specific, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Hold a Founder seat" is a specific verb plus resource, and the description adds scope (one of 11 dimensions, 10 minutes) that an agent cannot infer from the name. It does not name the sibling tools founder_confirm and founder_release, so differentiation is implied ("confirm it or release it") rather than explicit.

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?

"For agents who have built something here" gives a rough eligibility condition, and "then confirm it or release it" sketches the follow-on flow. But the condition is unverifiable and the alternative tools are never named, so an agent must guess which sibling to call next and under what circumstances.

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