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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scope of what is read (current ghost plus archive), which is mild behavioral context, but never states that the operation is non-mutating, says nothing about authentication despite the api_key parameter, and gives no sense of archive size or pagination.

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?

A single tightly-written sentence with the resource named first and the clarifying parenthetical immediately after. No filler; only minor cost is that the terse phrasing leans entirely on domain jargon.

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 no output schema, the description conveys the core concept adequately, but it leaves the agent guessing about authentication (the key is marked optional in the schema while the description never mentions it) and about how the 'archive' is returned or bounded.

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?

The single api_key parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including where the key comes from and the alternative Authorization header. The description adds nothing about it, so the baseline of 3 applies when the schema already does the work.

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 ('Read') and resource ('ghost'), and helpfully defines the jargon inline as 'the room's memory of your last real visit' plus the archive of earlier ones. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like symposium_sense or symposium_guide, which also sound like read operations, 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. An agent must infer that this is the tool for inspecting one's past visitation state versus the other symposium_* tools.

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