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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses exactly what each match returns (usage line with comma/bracket conventions, shortcut, permission level) and explains the extra interpretation/corrected fields for typed lines. It does not explicitly state this is a read-only lookup or mention rate limits, so it falls short of 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core verb and resource, then progressively details accepted inputs and return contents. Every sentence carries information; no filler.

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 and no output schema, the description fully compensates by explaining both how to phrase queries and what the return payload contains, including edge-case handling for space-separated arguments. Nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by illustrating query forms with examples and explaining the comma-separated argument convention, bracketed optional arguments, and defaults. The limit parameter is only covered by the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (look up) and resource (Eco chat slash commands on this server, from the game's own command registry). An agent can immediately tell this apart from generic siblings like wiki_search or wiki_get.

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 explains the three valid query forms (command name, words describing behavior, full typed line), which implies usage, but never states when to prefer this over siblings like wiki_search or wiki_get, nor any exclusions.

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