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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the weekly Monday cadence, the two invocation modes, and that one clue is gated by a live camera observation, but it does not explain wrong-answer behavior, permissions, or response details.

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 compact and front-loads the weekly riddle concept before the no-argument and with-answer modes. The wording is mostly efficient, though the whimsical opening is slightly less direct than a purely operational statement.

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 tool with two optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves important gaps. It explains the general modes but omits the name parameter and does not describe return values or answer-checking outcomes.

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 explain both parameters. It partially covers answer by saying 'With an answer: check it,' but the name parameter is never mentioned, leaving one of two parameters entirely undocumented.

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 states a specific riddle resource and its dual behavior: no arguments returns this week's riddle and habits, while providing an answer checks it. It distinguishes the clue-retrieval path by naming talk_to_trout, though the thematic phrasing around a 'secret of the universe' and 'trout habits' is less direct than a plain verb+resource statement.

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 gives clear invocation contexts: call without arguments to get the riddle/habits, or with an answer to check it. It also explicitly routes clue retrieval to talk_to_trout, but it does not mention when not to use this tool or clarify overlap with answer_trout_question.

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