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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds that it 'needs no input' and describes the content scope. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides useful context about what to expect (a full description), though it doesn't detail return format or pagination – minor for an info tool.

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 longer than minimal, but every sentence earns its place: content enumeration, read-only note, usage ordering, consequences, and example queries. It is front-loaded with what the tool does and provides actionable guidance. Slight verbosity prevents a 5.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is fully sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to call it. It covers purpose, prerequisites, and example triggers.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description explicitly states 'needs no input,' reinforcing the schema. No further parameter explanation is needed.

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 this tool provides the full SDK kit description, enumerating specific capabilities (leaderboard, saves, full screen, ad break, rewarded ad, clip recording). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly ordering it after klyo_game_requirements and before game development.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'CALL THIS RIGHT AFTER klyo_game_requirements, BEFORE YOU WRITE A GAME FOR klyo.' Also explains the negative consequences of skipping it (no leaderboard, no cross-device saves, ads will fail checks). This leaves no ambiguity about when to invoke this tool.

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