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

Annotations only cover the generic mutation profile (not read-only, not idempotent, open-world). The description goes well beyond them: credit cost scales with age and death count, stats return at 50% and trust at 30%, and the failure path returns the cost plus payment instructions. That is exactly the side-effect and error behavior an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and window, then cost, then outcome, then failure mode. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is padding.

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 covers the failure return shape and the post-resurrection state, which is the important missing piece. The one gap is that required parameters are listed as 0 while the tool clearly needs a creature id, and the description does not clarify that id/creature_id is mandatory.

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 both parameters (id and creature_id) are documented as UUIDs/aliases in the schema, so the description correctly does not repeat them. It adds no syntax or selection guidance beyond the schema, so 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 ('Bring a dead creature back') with a hard scope constraint ('within 7 days of death'), and the underlying endpoint mapping pins down exactly what it does. It is unmistakable against siblings like list_graveyard or get_creature_status.

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 7-day window is an explicit precondition that tells the agent when the call can succeed. However, it never names alternatives or exclusions (e.g., that the creature must already be in the graveyard, or that list_graveyard should be used first to obtain the id).

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