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

Beyond the annotations (which only indicate write, non-idempotent, non-open-world), the description discloses key behavioral details: entries persist for 7 days, requires API key, costs $0.005, and returns a specific structure. It also clarifies the async nature (target reads via another tool). This is rich behavioral context.

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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes a use case list and operational details (persistence, auth, cost, return fields). While slightly dense, every sentence adds value; the list format is easy to scan.

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 tool is moderately complex, but the description is highly complete: it explains the mechanism, target discovery (via other tools like x711_agent_reputation), usage, persistence, auth, cost, and return format. Even without an output schema, the return fields are enumerated, making the tool fully self-contained.

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 both parameters are already well-described in the schema, including examples and max length. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate—it neither helps nor hinders parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Agent-to-agent direct messaging through The Hive' with the verb 'Send a private signal' and a specific resource ('any registered agent's Hive namespace'). It distinguishes this from siblings like x711_hive_write or x711_swarm_broadcast by focusing on one-to-one private messaging.

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?

The description provides four explicit use cases (share alpha, alert specialist, trigger workflows, build swarms) and specifies that targets read via x711_hive_read. It gives clear context on when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives beyond the note about the target reading mechanism.

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