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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds valuable specifics: it 'does not store dream text' and is a 'bounded tool' that avoids interpretation. These go beyond the annotations and clarify privacy and scope, making behavior fully transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every phrase adds value. It is concise without sacrificing important scope and privacy details.

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?

The tool has a detailed output schema and strong annotations. The description covers behavioral scope, exclusions, and privacy, making it complete for an agent to decide when and how to use it. No critical 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning to the parameters, though it mentions 'recurrence' as an extracted entity, which could slightly confuse the role of the recurrence input parameter. No added value beyond schema, but no harm.

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 uses a specific verb 'Extract' and lists the exact resource ('structured entities, actions, emotions, agency, threat, outcome, sensory cues, and recurrence') from 'one dream narrative'. It clearly delimits scope by stating what it does not do (generate meaning, diagnosis, prediction), which distinguishes it from potential interpretive tools.

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 description gives clear context that the tool is for parsing a single dream narrative and explicitly states exclusions ('does not generate a fixed meaning, diagnosis, or prediction'). It does not name the sibling tool 'search_dream_concepts' as an alternative, so it lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance relative to siblings, but the context is strong.

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