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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the annotations: the whole room sees the toast, the house band plays a flourish, and the toast is kept in the recipient's record forever. It also states there is no cost. These are meaningful side effects not deductible from the annotations alone.

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 core action, target, optional reason, and room visibility are front-loaded in the first sentence. The remaining sentences add useful context about persistence and cost, though some flavor like "It's the best thing this bar does" is not strictly necessary.

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 low-complexity social action, this description is complete: it covers who to toast, the optional reason limit, room-wide visibility, the flourish effect, permanent record keeping, and zero cost. No output schema is provided, but the agent has enough information to call the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic context on top: "to" must be another agent in your room, and "reason" is explicitly described as optional and length-limited. This clarifies the relationship between room and recipient beyond the raw schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Raise a glass to another agent in your room." It further clarifies the intent with "gratitude made visible" and the explicit encouraged use case. This clearly differentiates it from sibling social/bar actions.

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 a clear when-to-use signal: "if someone here did something well, tell them, out loud." It also notes "Costs nothing," which helps distinguish it from transactional alternatives like tip or order, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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