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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: "Rooms rotate weekly" warns that results change over time and cannot be cached indefinitely, and the field list compensates for the absence of an output schema.

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, each earning its place: what is returned, when to call it, and the rotation caveat. The ordering instruction is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 no-required-param list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return fields, the call ordering, and the volatility caveat, which is close to complete. Only minor operational details such as result size or whether the list can be empty are left unstated.

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 single visitor_name parameter has full schema description coverage, including the useful note that reading needs no name while writing does. The tool description itself adds nothing about the parameter, so the schema carries the load; baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List the museum rooms") with an explicit scope ("open today") and even enumerates the returned fields (id, title, premise, dates, URLs). This clearly separates it from the single-room sibling get_room without the agent needing to open either schema.

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?

"Call this first: it tells you where to walk" gives explicit ordering guidance relative to the rest of the museum toolset, which is the main decision an agent faces here. It stops short of naming a specific alternative (e.g. get_room for details on one room) or stating when not to call it, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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