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

Annotations already declare the mutation/idempotency/safety profile, and the description usefully adds the default behavior (ticks off unless done:false) and that the day defaults to the user's local today. It does not describe the response or error behavior, but with annotations covering safety this is solid added 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the identifier convention. No filler, nothing repeated from the schema.

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 3-parameter, single-required-param toggle with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers action, defaults, and identifier source. The only omission is what the call returns (no output schema exists), which would help an agent confirm the resulting state.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a genuine semantic hint not in the schema: the ritual may be named the way the user says it ('meditate') or by id, which signals fuzzy name matching. The date and done semantics are left entirely to 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('tick a ritual off') plus the inverse operation ('untick it'), and names the sibling list_rituals as the id source. An agent can immediately distinguish this from list_rituals without opening the schema.

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 context for the inverse case ('done: false') and points to list_rituals for obtaining ids, which is the main prerequisite. It does not state any explicit when-not-to-use or edge conditions (e.g. what happens for an unknown ritual name), so it stops short of a 5.

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