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

Annotations declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, so the mutation profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds two meaningful facts: it requires the private entry_nonce and it consumes the entry's validation budget. It still doesn't say what a failed compile leaves behind, so not a 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?

Three tight sentences, the core action front-loaded, each clause carrying distinct information (what it does, the nonce requirement, the budget cost). 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented here. Given that, the description adequately covers the action, the prerequisite credential, and the cost. The unexplained 'source' argument and absent failure behavior are the only remaining gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It clarifies entry_nonce (private, required) and entry_id (existing entry), which is genuine added meaning, but leaves the 'source' parameter entirely unexplained, so partial compensation only.

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 and resource ('Compile GardenScript') plus scope ('for an existing entry without running the official scenario'), which clearly separates it from validate_gardenscript and submit_garden_strategy. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Implies the usage context (an existing entry you don't want to run through the official scenario) and warns that it consumes the validation budget, which is a real cost signal. However, it never names the alternative tools (validate_gardenscript, strategy_seal) or states 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.