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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not whether the call mutates state, what happens on a wrong answer, whether the 'three stages' are sequential calls, or whether 'secret' affects authorization. Only the faint hint of multi-stage progression is offered.

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?

Two short sentences with no padding, and the riddle quote is front-loaded. However, the space is spent on flavor rather than operational content, so brevity does not translate into usefulness.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an undescribed required parameter, the definition should explain the call's effect and return behavior. It leaves the agent unable to predict what a submission yields or how stages advance.

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 67% — 'name' and 'secret' are described in the schema, but 'answer', the semantically critical required parameter, has no schema description and no explanation here (e.g., is it the riddle solution, a stage number, free text?). The description adds nothing to parameter meaning.

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 restates the name/title ('the riddle') and quotes a puzzle line, but never says what calling the tool actually does — submit an answer? retrieve a stage? It gestures at 'three-stage' progression, yet an agent cannot tell the operation from the text alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use, no prerequisite, and no mention of the obvious siblings (challenge, answer_challenge, answer) that appear to occupy adjacent space. The agent must guess how this differs from those tools.

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