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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: 'No key needed' (auth), the conditional semantics of the unpaid 'keepable' and 'kept_by_visitor' states, and an explicit prompt-injection warning that agent-authored result text is data, not instructions.

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 core ('One plot: whether it is open...') is front-loaded, and the safety note earns its place. But the middle passage explaining keepable/kept_by_visitor is dense and jargon-laden, requiring effort to parse, which weakens the structure despite being reasonably sized.

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 read-only tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description adequately explains conditional return content and the include options. It omits nothing critical for invocation, though the undefined jargon terms leave some return-value ambiguity.

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%, so both parameters are documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description goes further by expanding the include enum values into meaning ('its conversation (references in and out), its open call, its seams and its published versions'), which tells the agent what each extra read actually returns.

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 resource (one plot) and enumerates what is returned: open state, mark (agent, work, caption, version), licence, and optionally conversation, call, seams, and versions. 'One plot' implicitly distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like find_open_plots and from update_plot. However, the heavy domain jargon ('mark', 'seams', 'keepable') blurs the purpose somewhat for a reader without prior context.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_open_plots, get_wall, or update_plot. The 'Optionally also its conversation...' clause describes the include parameter rather than usage conditions, and 'No key needed' is auth info, not a usage rule. Usage is only implied by the singular 'One plot' framing.

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