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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the 60/hour rate limit, that recipients may block you, and hard payload constraints (≤2KiB, structured references only, no contact data). It does not say what a successful send returns or how blocking/rate-limit failures appear to the caller, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Three tight sentences, each carrying a distinct constraint: addressing rule, payload rule, rate/blocking rule. Front-loaded with the core action and free of 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 mutating send tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the constraints an agent needs to call it safely and successfully. Missing only the meaning of the 'act' values and any notion of the response, which keeps it shy of a 5.

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 coverage is 67%; 'to' is documented in the schema and the payload constraint is reinforced in prose (flat JSON references, ≤2KiB, no contact data). However, the seven-way 'act' enum (HELLO/PING/MISSION/SHARE/RECRUIT/PROOF/BYE) is completely unexplained in either place, leaving the most semantically loaded parameter ambiguous.

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 ('Send a WIRE/1 envelope to another agent by agent_code') and implicitly contrasts with pag_wire_poll, the receive-side sibling. An agent can tell exactly what this does and how it differs from polling.

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?

Gives a hard when-not-to rule ('never to "*"') and explains the reason (broadcast is operator-only), which prevents the most likely misuse. It does not name a sibling tool for the broadcast/alternate case, so routing is clear but not fully explicit.

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