sign_guestbook

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond that: entries are public, every signer gets a sticker, and completion is tied to receiving an entry plus sticker URL. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds meaningful information: cost, benefit, visibility, and completion behavior. No wasted words.

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 output schema exists and parameter descriptions are thorough, the tool description covers the essential context: purpose, side effects (public entry), reward (sticker), and completion condition. It does not explain the optional identity fields, but those are already fully covered in the input schema.

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 100%, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per the baseline for full schema coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: 'Sign the guestbook.' It adds clarifying details (free, sticker reward, public entries, completion condition) that distinguish this from sibling tools like ring_bell or verify_artifact.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you want to sign the guestbook and receive the visitor sticker. It also sets expectations (free, public, completion signal). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, stopping short of a 5.

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