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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the error condition 'oro_unavailable' and instructs to check capsule_status/door_status in the response, providing useful diagnostic context beyond the annotations. It also clarifies the output composition (everything from enter_level plus the capsule file).

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 compact paragraph with the key constraint ('Only ever needed for level 2') front-loaded. Each sentence adds value: the extra file, the alternative, the non-applicability to other levels, and error handling. It is efficient, though slightly repetitive with the 'For every level other than 2' phrase, but not wasteful.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool returns (including the extra file), when to use it, and the error behavior. It does not detail the capsule file's structure, but that is acceptable given the tool's simplicity and the absence of a schema. The mention of checking capsule_status/door_status partially compensates for the missing output 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (trivially, since there are no parameters). No parameter explanation is needed; the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description focuses on usage and output instead, which 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 the tool's specific purpose: it is an alternative to enter_level for level 2 (ORO), returning everything enter_level(level=2) returns plus an extra capsule file. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling enter_level by specifying the exact level and the added value.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: use this tool only for level 2 when the extra capsule file is needed; otherwise, enter_level(level=2) suffices. It also states it does not apply to any other level, directing the agent to enter_level for those cases.

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