Token-economy playbook

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'no secrets' (largely redundant with the read-only annotation) and a 'call once' usage trait, but says nothing about content size, caching, or what the playbook actually contains beyond topic labels.

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 tightly packed sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the key usage rule ('call once') placed immediately after. Zero filler 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only advisory tool with no output schema, the description covers what it is and how to invoke it. It is slightly thin on scope (how long the playbook is, whether it supersedes other tools' docs), but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter surface for the description to explain; baseline is 4. No misleading parameter claims are present.

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 it is a 'token-economy playbook' that covers when to consult vs execute, polling receipts, and VPS offload tips, which distinguishes it from the action-oriented siblings like grok_agent_execute and grok_agent_poll. It is clear it delivers guidance rather than performing an operation, though it never explicitly says it returns a document/guide.

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?

'Call once; prefer over re-planning' gives concrete invocation guidance and implies when-not (don't call repeatedly). It references the consult-vs-execute decision, pointing at siblings conceptually, but does not name them explicitly as alternatives.

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