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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by revealing payload-size implications (~100-500KB screenshot), the active-scene fallback when sceneId is omitted, and the exact nature of the appended ASCII map. None of this contradicts the annotations.

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 deliver purpose, parameter rationale, and related-tool routing without wasted words. Each clause earns its place: the map explanation justifies includeMap, the screenshot note sets size and usage expectations, and the final sentence resolves the ID lookup workflow.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return content. It enumerates the major result categories and clarifies the optional map and screenshot outputs, including their use cases. An agent has everything needed to call the tool correctly and interpret its response.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaningful semantics beyond field names: what the map contains (walls, doors, numbered positions, legend), when each optional parameter is worth using, and the fact that omitting sceneId targets the active scene. This materially helps an agent choose parameter values correctly.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get full scene details', followed by a concrete inventory of returned content (tokens, walls, lights, notes, regions). This unambiguously distinguishes the tool from sibling list-oriented tools like scene-list.

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?

The description gives explicit usage conditions: includeMap should be set false 'when you only need the lists', includeScreenshot is recommended on first scene view and skipped on routine turns, and scene-list is named as the way to find scene IDs. This is concrete when/when-not guidance.

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