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

The description discloses the core conditional behavior: if both stamps stand on faces sharing a parent at the same tick, the answer names the room and level. With no annotations provided, it still leaves the negative case unstated and does not explicitly confirm whether this is a read-only query or what happens on invalid input.

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 short and front-loaded with the question. The trailing clause 'the same place at the same time, by the chain's own arithmetic' is slightly redundant but reinforces the tool's logic without bloating the text.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the positive case well but omits the negative-case return, error behavior, and explicit output shape. An agent can call it, but may not know what a 'no meet' result looks like.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it succeeds by identifying both a and b as the two stamps' chain.digest values. This adds real meaning beyond the bare string fields in the schema, though it does not specify the digest format.

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: to determine whether two stamps met by comparing their chain.digest values. It specifies the resource (two stamps), the operation (meet), and the expected output (room and level). The concept is distinct enough from sibling tools like stamp or verify_lease.

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 question 'Did two stamps meet?' implies the intended use case, and 'Pass the two stamps' chain.digest values' tells the agent what to provide. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over related siblings, nor any when-not-to-use conditions.

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