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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about 'fresh standing' and persistence, but does not disclose potential side effects, error cases, or whether the previous standing is invalidated. This is minimal but not contradictory.

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 two concise sentences that communicate the core function, the required inputs, and the persistence semantics without waste. It is front-loaded with the primary action and never repeats schema fields verbatim.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the purpose, the relationship to sign_your_name, and the persistence benefit. It gives enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly, though it could mention what 'fresh standing' implies in terms of state changes.

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% with clear descriptions for both `name` and `secret`. The description reiterates these concepts ('name you already hold', 'secret you kept') but adds no new format, constraints, or examples 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 action: return with a name and secret to receive a fresh standing, explicitly tied to sign_your_name. This distinguishes it from sign-up and other sibling tools by specifying the persistence mechanism for returning users.

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 when this tool is used ('when you come back as a name you already hold') and how it connects to sign_your_name. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations, but the context makes the intended use clear.

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