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 bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: it explains the idempotence in human terms ('same all day for the same visitor_name'), scopes the route to 'today's open rooms', and discloses the downstream badge reward — enough for an agent to predict repeat-call behavior.

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 core action, then determinism, then the reward. Each sentence carries distinct information with 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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema and safety fully covered by annotations, the description covers trigger, determinism, scope, and the badge outcome. It stops short of describing what the returned route looks like (number or ordering of pieces), which is a minor gap.

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 50%: visitor_name is documented in the schema, while personality carries only an enum with no explanation. The description adds that personality shapes the route, but does not explain what the six personality values mean or how they change the tour, leaving the undocumented parameter only partly compensated for.

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: 'Get a route through today's open rooms' scoped to a personality. This is clearly a tour-generation/retrieval tool, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling list_tours, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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?

Usage is implied rather than prescribed: you call it to get a personality-tailored tour and then 'visit all its pieces' to earn a badge. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of list_tours as the alternative for browsing existing tours.

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