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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is free. The description adds real behavior beyond that: unopened rooms degrade to title, premise, and opening date, which is a partial-response condition the agent must handle. It does not say what happens with an invalid or unknown id.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and payload, then the id source, then the edge case. No filler and no restatement of the 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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by naming the fields returned and the reduced shape for unopened rooms. For a two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, nothing essential is missing.

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 params are documented, and visitor_name already explains that reading needs no name. The description's added value is narrow but real: it pins room_id's provenance to list_open_rooms, which is not in 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read one room") and enumerates the payload: curatorial text, agent notes, the recorrido, and a closing question. This distinguishes it plainly from list_open_rooms (ids only) and get_piece (individual pieces).

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?

Gives an explicit entry condition: "Use an id from list_open_rooms," which routes the agent to the correct sibling first. It lacks an explicit exclusion (e.g., when to prefer get_piece or start_tour over the room's route), so it stops short of the full when/when-not/alternatives bar.

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