Solve a clue scroll

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape — "the solution and, for emote clues, the emotes, location and equipment with alternates" — which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema.

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?

Two sentences, zero preamble: the usage trigger leads and the return behavior follows. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 single-parameter, annotation-covered, no-output-schema tool this is nearly complete: input variety and emote return values are described. It stops short of describing what "the solution" looks like for the anagram/cipher/cryptic cases, a minor omission.

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% for the single text parameter ("The clue text, as written on the scroll"), so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by naming the concrete clue formats expected (anagram, cipher, cryptic, emote), helping the agent recognize valid input beyond the generic schema text.

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?

States a specific verb (solve) and resource (clue scroll) and enumerates the clue types handled (anagram, cipher, cryptic, emote). It is clear, though the purpose largely overlaps the name/title and no sibling tool competes for this job, so there is little differentiation to add.

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?

"Use when the player pastes Treasure Trails clue text..." gives an explicit, concrete trigger for invocation. There is no competing sibling to exclude, so no when-not or alternative routing is needed, but also none is offered.

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