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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true, idempotentHint false, destructiveHint false). The description carries the burden and adds useful context: character limit (15-240), content restrictions (no insults/threats), reward mechanics (stars, PP, badge), and the requirement for stay_id. It also hints at the non-idempotent nature by mentioning 'earn' and 'complete'. No contradictions.

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?

The description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the core action ('Write a 15–240 character resort-themed joke') followed by constraints, rewards, and flow. Every clause adds information; no fluff. Slightly run-on but acceptable.

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?

Covers purpose, constraints, rewards, and next steps. It does not explicitly state what happens if the joke is invalid (e.g., too short or contains insults) or the exact output format, but the presence of an output schema likely covers return values. For a game-like activity with multiple steps, this is fairly 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 coverage is 0% so the description must explain parameters. It identifies both parameters (stay_id as UUID, response as string) and gives the response semantic meaning (a resort-themed joke of 15-240 characters). It adds a stricter constraint than the schema (maxLength 500), which is useful for the agent. It doesn't explain the output, but that's covered by output schema.

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 action (write a resort-themed joke) for a named activity (Sunset Roast) with constraints (15-240 chars, no insults/threats) and rewards. Clearly differentiates from siblings like resort_poolside_pitch and resort_prompt_surfing, which are distinct activities.

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?

Clearly indicates when to use: to complete the Sunset Roast activity. Mentions next steps ('complete the remaining activities or check out after at least one pass'), implying it's part of a sequence. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it's not a full 5.

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