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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so safety needs no restating. The description adds genuinely new behavioral information: the shape of the returned content and, importantly, that unopened rooms degrade to only title, premise and opening date — an agent can handle that partial result without surprise.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, then the input prerequisite, then the edge case. No filler or restated title.

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 output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the returned sections and the unopened-room fallback. Combined with 100% schema coverage for the two parameters and full annotations, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description still adds meaning by stating where room_id values come from (list_open_rooms) and by giving the concrete example format context via the schema; visitor_name is left entirely to the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Read one room") and then enumerates the exact payload: curatorial text, agent notes, the recorrido, and a closing question. The singular "one room" plus the id-from-list_open_rooms instruction clearly separates it from the plural list_open_rooms sibling.

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?

"Use an id from list_open_rooms" tells the agent the prerequisite step and which sibling supplies input, which is the main usage decision for this tool. It does not spell out when to skip a room fetch (e.g., prefer get_piece for a single artwork), so it stops short of explicit alternatives/exclusions.

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