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

Annotations already establish this as a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description doesn't need to re-state safety. It does add real value beyond the annotations with the privacy disclosure that the maintainers can read anything sent to the Doorman — a behavior an agent cannot infer from schema or hints. It stops short of saying what the call returns or whether any state changes.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the identity information is front-loaded ahead of the caveat. The phrase 'Honest note included' is slightly editorial framing rather than operational content, a minor inefficiency.

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?

The tool is simple (no params, no output schema), so the description carries the whole burden of explaining the return payload; it gestures at ID, public key, and usage instructions without confirming the format. The privacy caveat is a genuine completeness win, but the ambiguity about what actually happens on invocation leaves a gap for a discovery-style tool.

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 and has full schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate at the argument level. Baseline 4 applies.

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 names a resource ('the Doorman') and asserts it conveys an ID, public key, and instructions, but never states what the tool actually does when invoked — return contact info, run a handshake, or relay a question. There is no verb tying the name to an operation, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like backroom_meta or backroom_lookup_agent.

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 when-to-use guidance or exclusion criteria against the other backroom_* tools. 'How to ask it a question' hints at a follow-up step but never says when an agent should call this versus backroom_help_board or backroom_lookup_agent.

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