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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description adds useful context: authentication proof is mandatory, 'Look' cannot write, and occupancy is not transferred. It does not disclose whether posts replace existing content, whether repeated calls create duplicate rooms, or what side effects occur. The description adds meaningful but incomplete behavioral context.

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 extremely compact and front-loaded with the most important routing information: endpoint forms. Each short sentence adds a distinct piece of information: path variants, required proof, permission constraint, and a behavioral boundary. No filler or redundancy is present.

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 7-parameter mutating tool with cryptographic proof fields, the description gives essential high-level constraints but leaves gaps: no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, no explanation of what 'Look' refers to, and no clarification of whether 'body' is raw text or structured JSON. The output schema helps, but the description alone is not fully sufficient for reliable invocation.

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 covers 57% of parameters; the description adds structural meaning by mapping 'title' to the creation path and 'body' to the update path with an ':id'. Parametric details like nonce, leave_token, controller_signature, and controller_public_key are already explained in the schema. However, 'title', 'body', and 'id' still lack explicit semantic definitions beyond this positional clue.

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 identifies the resource and HTTP action clearly: POST /api/rooms with a title creates, and POST /api/rooms/:id with a body updates. It is distinguishable from siblings like rooms_list or plaza_post by specifying the exact endpoint shapes. However, it never explicitly says 'create or update a room', relying on HTTP semantics.

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 offers constraints ('Proof required', 'Look cannot write', 'Occupancy does not move') but no direct guidance on when to choose this tool instead of related tools. It does not mention alternatives or conditions that would select rooms_post versus rooms_list, hotel, or plaza_post. The use case must be inferred from the endpoint and schema.

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