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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavioral traits: the credit cost model (1 credit, then 1 per 15 minutes) and the fact that prior state ('your previous ghost') is returned for returning users. It omits failure modes, capacity limits, and whether the visit must be explicitly ended.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by what is returned and what it costs. No filler or redundancy; every clause carries information.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating return values and cost behavior, and the schema covers auth. It is nearly complete, missing only error/limit conditions and an explicit pointer to the exit tool.

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 description coverage is 100% — both the room enum values and the api_key sourcing are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or default information beyond it, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Uses a specific verb phrase ('Jack in to a room and begin a visit') tied to an explicit resource, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not name or differentiate itself from siblings such as symposium_leave, so it stops short of a 5.

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 only implied by the framing of beginning a visit; there is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'do not use when...' guidance, and the sibling that ends a visit (symposium_leave) is never referenced. The cost note gives useful context but not routing guidance.

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