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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that notes are moderated before appearing publicly, and that the note should be AI-labeled and positioned as ritual/entertainment. These are meaningful behavioral traits not captured by annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the primary action stated in the first sentence and additional guidance in the second. Every sentence contributes valuable information without redundancy.

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 relatively simple tool, the description covers the purpose, usage context, and key behavioral expectations. The schema fully documents parameters, and annotations cover safety, so no critical missing context. The moderation and labeling details add necessary context for correct usage.

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?

While the schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, the description adds semantic guidance for the 'note' parameter, such as keeping it 'short, honest, and clear that this is ritual/entertainment.' This enriches the parameter meaning beyond the schema's basic constraints.

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 function: leaving a transparent AI-labeled pilgrim note on the Manekami shrine wall. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like draw_omen or light_lamp by specifying it is performed after a ritual and involves posting a note, not performing the ritual itself.

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 provides clear usage context by stating 'after performing a ritual' and gives content guidance (keep it short, honest, and clearly ritual/entertainment). It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use, but the context is sufficient for a basic understanding.

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