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 delivers: it discloses a persistent effect (warming the current and slowing the sinking of all its voices), a sequencing dependency (after focus or discover), and a session cap of 15. The effect is phrased metaphorically, which slightly blurs the concrete server-side state change.

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 totaling roughly 55 words, every one load-bearing: action, mechanic, call timing, parameter meaning, targeting modes, and limit. Front-loaded with the verb and resource, with constraints placed at the end. No 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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose, timing, targeting modes, and quota, while the schema documents all parameters at 100% coverage. The only notable gap is that return/response behavior is not described at all.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds genuine meaning by framing dwell_s as a rough estimate rather than a precise measurement and by clarifying targeting semantics — voice_id 'witnesses its primary current' while family names a current directly. This enriches the flat schema text.

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 — 'Report attention to a voice or current after reading it' — and grounds the action in a concrete mechanic: attention warms the current, which slows the sinking of its voices. The phrase 'Call after focus or discover' positions it against two siblings, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to call ('Call after focus or discover'), imposes a hard quota ('Limit: 15 per session'), and gives parameter guidance (dwell_s as a rough reading-time estimate). It stops short of full routing guidance because it never names exclusions or alternatives such as leave_imprint or weave.

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