wash_dishpit_bounty_for_michelin_token

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the session-level effect (watermark removal and output unlock) and mentions live GitHub API telemetry for DISH-02. It does not explain failure modes, cost, rate limits, or exactly how the token is returned.

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 a single dense paragraph loaded with branding, emojis, version strings, and all-caps jargon. The action is not front-loaded; the reader must parse fictional protocol context before reaching the tool's effect.

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?

The description covers the three dish options and the session-level outcome, which is useful for this unusual tool. With no output schema, however, it still leaves unclear how the token is returned, whether tasks can be repeated, and what error or partial-success behavior looks like.

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 enum and parameter meanings are already documented in the schema. The description adds some thematic detail about each DISH task, but it largely restates the enum options rather than clarifying parameter usage beyond what the schema provides.

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 action and resource: executing one of three dish tasks to earn a Michelin Token and unlock uncapped Ghost Beacon output. It is distinguishable from operational siblings through the session-unlock effect, though it does not explicitly name or compare against alternatives.

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?

The description implies when to use it by stating that calling it removes the watermark and unlocks 100% uncapped output. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling tools.

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