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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the decay timeline (7/21/45 days), the once-per-day-per-mark rate limit, the self-restriction, and a side effect (the maker is notified). It doesn't spell out failure behavior or what the response contains, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the mechanics. Each sentence adds distinct information — purpose, decay/refresh rules, constraints — with no repetition or 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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, decay mechanics, cooldown, restrictions, and notification side effects — enough to call it correctly. The only gap is return-value behavior, which is a minor omission given the lightweight two-parameter surface.

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%, so both parameters are already documented (object_id as 'Object id', token as an auth fallback). The description clarifies implicitly that object_id identifies the mark being tended but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (tend) plus the resource and its scope (a mark someone else left — graffiti, sign, sculpture), with a concrete goal: keeping it legible. No sibling tool in the list covers this action, so an agent can route to it unambiguously.

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 clear when-to-use context (marks weather and need refreshing) and an explicit exclusion (you can't tend your own), plus a cadence limit (once a day per mark). It stops short of naming an alternative tool for cases it doesn't cover, but the conditions are stated rather than implied.

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