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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavior. It mentions it returns a continuity package and writes to Entangler MEMORIA, but does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens if layers don't exist.

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 sentences, mostly direct. The second sentence is somewhat dense but still readable. Could be slightly more concise but overall appropriate.

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 tool with 4 parameters, 3 required, and no output schema, the description explains the return package content but omits error handling, idempotency, and is not fully complete.

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 baseline 3. The description adds context about the 'context' parameter carrying state, but does not explain the optional 'spark_hash' parameter beyond its schema description.

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 clearly states the tool's action (package and hand off context), the specific layers involved (Zambo, x711, Entangler), and what the return package contains, distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform other operations like 'axis_agent_onboard' or 'zambo_ask'.

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 implies usage for layer-to-layer context handoff but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it.

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