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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world). The description adds meaningful behavioral context: at least one expressive field must be non-empty, and the call returns a one-time control token. It does not explain what 'optional persistent' means or the consequences of creation, but it goes beyond the annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the key constraint, then the return behavior. Every sentence carries useful information and there is 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?

The output schema covers the return value, and the description adds the one-time token context and the non-empty constraint. However, for a create tool with four undocumented parameters and siblings, it omits field semantics and when-to-use guidance, leaving a clear gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only says 'at least one expressive field must be non-empty' without naming which fields (name, motto, symbol, description) are expressive or explaining their intended semantics. This leaves the four parameters largely undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: create persistent Garden identity state. However, 'optional' is vague and it does not distinguish this create operation from sibling tools like identity_update or identity_get.

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 gives a precondition ('At least one expressive field must be non-empty') but no guidance on when to use this tool versus identity_update, identity_get, or garden_discover. An agent must infer the usage context.

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