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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and non-open-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by clarifying that no simulation or LLM call is performed, which prevents agents from expecting costly side effects.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and an immediate clarifying constraint. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

For a simple single-parameter read tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. The only notable gap is the lack of any explanation of the arena_slug parameter.

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 schema has one parameter (arena_slug) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain its meaning or expected format. Because schema coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Read the sealed results for a GardenScript arena.' It distinguishes the action from simulation or generation, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_garden_arena or submit_garden_strategy.

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?

It implies the tool is for retrieving already-sealed results rather than running anything, reinforced by 'Performs no simulation or LLM call.' However, it does not state prerequisites (e.g., that sealing must have occurred) or name alternative tools for other stages.

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