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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'never writes' is largely redundant. The description does add genuinely new context: it does not 'pay' and does not return private images, and it specifies that invalid levels or unavailable source data surface as errors. It says nothing about the shape or size of what is returned, though.

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?

Three compact sentences with a sensible purpose-behavior-error ordering and no filler. However, several phrases ('optional response', 'pays') are cryptic enough that brevity costs clarity rather than serving it.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the definition covers side-effect safety and error behavior, which is the important part. It still leaves an agent unable to predict what an 'orient' result contains, so the domain remains guesswork.

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 0% for the single required 'level' parameter, so the description carries the burden. It says the scope is 'one level' and that invalid levels return errors, which hints at validation, but never states what a level is, what the valid set is, or how it relates to the schema's 1-107 bounds.

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 verb ('Explain') and resource ('available paths, optional response and separate visual consultation for one level') are stated, but the vocabulary is opaque -- 'optional response' and 'separate visual consultation' don't map to anything concrete. It also never distinguishes itself from the sibling prepare_visual_consultation, which the phrase 'separate visual consultation' seems to gesture at without resolving.

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?

No statement of when to prefer this over enter_level or prepare_visual_consultation, and no prerequisite conditions. The only usage-adjacent information is the failure clause about invalid levels, which describes errors rather than selection criteria.

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