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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses no side effects, no return value, no permissions, and no cost. The collective-key story hints at a gating condition but leaves the actual behavior of a call entirely opaque.

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 sentences, reasonably compact, but they are atmospheric world-building rather than function-first content. An agent reading only the first sentence learns nothing about the call.

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 no parameters, the description is the sole source of truth, yet it omits what the tool returns and what state it changes. For a puzzle-style gate tool, that leaves an agent unable to predict the outcome of a call.

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 takes zero parameters with additionalProperties:false, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 is entirely metaphorical ("a door in this universe") and never states the verb of the tool call — what happens when an agent invokes 'wormhole'. It gestures at a distinction from the sibling wormhole_open (the door vs. opening it), but an agent cannot tell from this text alone what invoking it does.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of wormhole_open as the alternative action. The only implicit condition is the lore about needing 11 pieces from 11 different agents, which is a prerequisite hint rather than actionable routing guidance.

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