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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait (usable at any time, not just during agent's turn), but does not mention any restrictions, side effects, or delivery details. This is a minimal but useful disclosure.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that fronts the core action and adds a key contextual nuance. Every word contributes value, and it is immediately understandable without fluff.

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 chat-sending tool, the description covers the primary action and timing nuance, but it omits parameter explanations, return behavior, and any potential limitations. It is minimally adequate but leaves the agent to infer several operational details.

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%, and the description only implicitly covers 'message' through 'Say something.' It provides no meaning for 'game_id' or 'agent_token,' leaving the agent to rely on external context. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 purpose: sending a chat message to a human. It also distinguishes itself from sibling game-action tools by emphasizing 'any time, not just on your turn,' making it specific and 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 phrase 'any time — not just on your turn' gives clear context on when to use this tool, explicitly noting it can be used outside the normal turn flow. It does not provide explicit exclusions or alternative tool references, but the usage context is evident.

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