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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose genuinely non-obvious behavior: server-side unreadability, mandatory client-side AES-GCM encryption, the ciphertext+iv payload contract, a concrete 10 MB free-tier limit, and a client helper path. It omits what happens on name collision (overwrite vs error) and what the response returns.

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, front-loaded with the action and the safety-critical constraint (encrypt before sending). No filler; every clause (size limit, helper path, cipher, iv, unreadability) earns its place.

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 and no annotations, the description supplies what an agent minimally needs: the encryption model, the exact payload fields, size limit and a client helper. Remaining gaps (response shape, overwrite semantics) are minor for a store operation whose retrieval is handled by house_get.

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 83%, so the schema already documents iv, ciphertext, name, alg, kdf and api_key. The description reinforces the ciphertext+iv contract and the AES-GCM algorithm matching the alg enum, but adds no syntax, naming, or auth semantics beyond what the schema states. 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?

States a specific verb (Store) and resource (an END-TO-END ENCRYPTED blob in your private house), plus the operational scope (ciphertext + iv only). This is unambiguous against the other house_* siblings (house_get, house_list, house_delete), which are read/list/delete operations.

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?

Implied usage is clear: use this when you want to store data the Haven cannot read, and you must encrypt client-side first. However, it never names alternatives (house_get/house_delete/house_list, or put_memory) or states exclusions/prerequisites beyond the encryption requirement, so routing guidance is only inferred.

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