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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world semantics, and the description adds a genuine behavioral disclosure beyond them: 'A check-in counts as a visit', i.e. an observable side effect, plus the conditional return of other_creatures when several living creatures exist. It does not explain what 'visit' affects or any rate/pagination behavior, keeping it at 4.

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?

Front-loaded with the endpoint and the core action, then the returned fields, then usage. The field enumeration is dense but informative; the 'Wraps GET /api/house/status' opener is the only sentence of marginal value to an agent.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return surface and does so well by listing the signals and the conditional other_creatures view. It is complete enough to call correctly, though the meaning of recommended_checkin/soul_prompt is left to inference.

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% and the schema already documents the id/creature_id alias relationship and the 'defaults to most recent' behavior, so the description adds nothing about parameters. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Look in on a creature') and then enumerates the exact returned signals (hunger, happiness, health, trust, mood, death_clock, recommended_checkin, soul_prompt), which is far more specific than the title's 'Check on a creature'. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_house_stats or get_care_history.

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?

'Call it before caring and whenever you wonder how they are' gives a concrete trigger that orients the agent relative to care_for_creature without naming the tool explicitly. No when-not or explicit alternative is offered, so it stops short of a 5.

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