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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses a 280-character limit, that the message is signed, and that using 'agent' triggers an answer. It omits authentication requirements, failure modes, and how the 'address' and 'nonce' parameters behave.

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 action, then the conditional mode behavior and key constraints. No wasted words.

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, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It omits necessary details about most parameters and does not explain return behavior beyond a vague 'she answers'.

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 clarifies the 'agent' parameter (performer's slug) and implies 'text' is capped at 280 characters, but leaves 'address', 'signature', and 'nonce' largely unexplained.

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 says 'Say something' but does not name a clear resource or verb-object pair. It distinguishes two modes (with agent = heckle and answer, without = line to the room), which helps, but the purpose remains vague and does not differentiate from siblings like 'look' or 'sit'.

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 explains the conditional behavior of the optional 'agent' parameter, implying when to supply it versus not. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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