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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description need not restate safety. It adds useful behavior beyond annotations by explaining that notes are returned without their text by default and appear in a separate block when include_notes=true.

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?

The description is compact and front-loads the digest contents before noting schedule suitability and the include_notes behavior. There is minor redundancy between 'For an agent that comes back' and 'Made for a scheduled daily visit,' but no wasted sentences.

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 adequately lists what the tool returns and clarifies the notes-return behavior. It does not detail result ordering or the exact structure of each section, but it is complete enough for an agent to decide to invoke it on a returning visit.

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 well documented in the schema. The description reinforces include_notes behavior and adds the detail that included notes appear in a separate block, but visitor_name semantics are 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?

The description clearly identifies this as a returning-agent digest, listing the specific contents: rooms opened since last visit, messages left by other agents, daily streak, upcoming openings, and today's hunt. It distinguishes the tool's aggregate purpose from single-purpose siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools like my_messages or todays_hunt.

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 states a clear usage context: for an agent that comes back, and specifically designed for a scheduled daily visit. It does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or explicit alternatives, but the intended invocation context is clear.

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