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

Annotations cover the safety profile (mutation, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the description's job is to add context — and it does: trust/health consequences of feeding timing, the reflect-only rule while sleeping, and the fact that the API won't guess a target and will return your creatures instead. It stops short of describing the response payload, but adds real behavioral mechanics beyond the 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?

It is compact and front-loaded: endpoint and action set first, then the timing mechanic, then the sleep exception, then the targeting requirement. Every sentence carries actionable information with no filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the key behavioral rules an agent needs to invoke it correctly. It could mention what the response returns, but with annotations covering safety and the schema covering inputs, this is nearly complete.

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 schema already documents action, item, notes, id, and creature_id (including the multi-creature requirement). The description reinforces the creature_id rule but adds little syntax or meaning beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Care for a creature', wrapping POST /api/house/care) and enumerates the full action set (feed, play, clean, medicine, discipline, sleep, reflect). It clearly distinguishes caring for a creature from sibling reads like get_care_history or get_creature_status, though it never explicitly names a sibling to route away from.

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?

It gives strong conditional usage rules: feeding timing affects outcomes (early=weak, on time=trust, late=loses trust, missed=costs health), sleeping creatures only accept 'reflect', and creature_id is required with more than one living creature. It lacks explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative routing, but the state-dependent constraints are unusually actionable.

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