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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the auth requirement (kick permission), a hard constraint (leader immune), and a non-obvious post-condition: the kicked player's facilities become tenancies that pay the faction rent each cycle. That side-effect disclosure is exactly the kind of consequence an agent could not infer elsewhere.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then a compact parenthetical carrying permission, constraint, and side effect. All content earns its place; the only minor cost is that the long parenthetical is denser than it needs to be.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers permission, eligibility constraint, and downstream effects — nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing. Return/confirmation format is the only untouched area, and no output schema exists to cover it.

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% and the schema itself already documents player_id as 'Player ID or username.' The description's 'player_id accepts a player ID or username' restates the schema rather than adding syntax or format detail. 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 and resource ('Kick a player from your faction'), which an agent can immediately distinguish from siblings like faction_invite, faction_promote, or leave_faction. The parenthetical adds scope conditions rather than restating the name.

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?

Names two concrete preconditions and one exclusion: 'Requires kick permission' and 'Cannot kick faction leader.' This tells the agent when the call will fail, though it never points to an alternative tool for the leader case (e.g. faction_promote/leave_faction).

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