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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive, idempotent, open-world mutation, but the description adds real context beyond them: exactly which public surfaces change, that public and showcase are independent targets, and that search/Bar ranking is unaffected. It stops short of noting ownership requirements or the effect of omitting both flags, but the surface-level behavior is well disclosed.

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?

A single tight sentence with the primary surfaces front-loaded and the non-effect clause trailing. No filler, nothing repeated from the title.

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 5-parameter idempotent mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the essential effect map and side-effect boundary. Minor gaps remain around prerequisites (own quest id) and the semantics of showing on both surfaces at once, but the definition is sufficient to invoke correctly.

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 every parameter is already documented, and the description largely restates the schema's own mapping of public/showcase to surfaces. It adds no format, default, or interaction semantics (e.g., what happens when both are omitted or set false) beyond the schema, 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?

States a concrete verb pair (show/hide) applied to a specific resource (the quest) on two named surfaces, so the agent knows this is a visibility toggle rather than a lifecycle change. It is not explicitly differentiated from siblings like close_quest or quest_status, but the resource and effect are unambiguous.

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 sentence 'Search and the Bar stay unchanged' is a useful scope/exclusion statement about side effects, and the parenthetical names both target surfaces. However, it never says when to call this versus close_quest (permanent removal) or quest_status (inspection), so the agent must infer the choice.

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