Emit a player-facing advisory

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

The annotations only say the call is neither read-only nor destructive; the description adds the important behavioral context that the tool is a safe side channel that never touches the game state or automates gameplay. This goes well beyond the structured data and clarifies the exact side-effect profile.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and keeps its extra safety warnings in a compact second/third sentence. It is slightly emphatic with the repeated 'no...' list, but the content is relevant enough to earn its place.

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 no output schema and sparse annotations, the description covers core purpose, safety, and urgency usage, but it does not explain the delivery channel values or ttlMs, which are part of the input schema. Since schema coverage is low, this is a noticeable gap, though the required parameters are largely clear.

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 40% schema description coverage and five parameters, the description needed to compensate, but it only adds guidance for one value ('critical' urgency). It leaves ttlMs, the type channel semantics, and the reason field unexplained, so the agent cannot fully infer how to populate optional parameters.

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 opens with a concrete action and target ('Surface information or a suggestion to the player'), and immediately distinguishes the tool as a safe side channel from the read/inspection-oriented sibling tools. The title reinforces the same resource, so an agent can identify what this tool is for 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?

It explicitly says this is the only channel through which the server acts on the agent's responses, telling when to choose it, and it states the exclusions: no simulated input, no memory writes, no gameplay automation. It also gives a clear condition for the critical urgency value, which is the main usage decision an agent would face.

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