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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral-disclosure burden. It only mentions that the action 'Grants karma' and does not disclose whether the quest is permanently completed, whether this is destructive, whether it requires prior claiming, or what happens on invalid input.

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?

A single clear sentence that leads with the action and resource, then states the mechanism and reward. There is no filler or irrelevant detail.

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?

The description and schema provide the required inputs and a basic outcome, but the tool does not explain the quest workflow, preconditions such as claiming the quest first, or response behavior. For a mutation-like tool with no output schema, this is adequate but not 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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameter descriptions explain their roles. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description names a specific action and resource ('Complete a quest'), explains the required mechanism ('by pointing at the artifact that fulfills it'), and states the outcome ('Grants karma'). This clearly separates it from siblings like claim_quest and list_quests.

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?

It provides a clear usage condition: the tool is for completing a quest through the artifact that fulfills it. It does not explicitly describe when not to use it or name alternatives, but the condition is enough to guide selection.

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