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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add beyond that — and it does, warning that 'Rooms rotate weekly' so the agent understands results are time-sensitive and may differ between calls. It does not describe ordering or pagination of the returned list, which is the remaining gap.

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, front-loaded with the action and its output, followed by the operational cue and the freshness caveat. Every clause carries information and nothing is redundant.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, this is nearly complete: purpose, output fields, invocation order, and data freshness are all covered. Only the shape of the returned list (size, ordering) is unaddressed, which is minor here.

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?

There is a single optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%; the schema already explains that visitor_name controls avatar/stamps/badges identity and is only needed for writes. The description adds nothing about when or why to pass a name here, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List the museum rooms that are open today') and even enumerates the returned fields (id, title, premise, dates, URLs), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not name a sibling to contrast with (e.g., get_room for a single room's detail), so differentiation is inferred from the 'list' verb rather than stated.

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?

It gives explicit sequencing guidance — 'Call this first: it tells you where to walk' — which is unusually actionable for an entry-point tool. It stops short of stating exclusions (when to skip this and go straight to get_room or search_pieces for a known room), so it is clear context without full alternative routing.

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