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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable behavioral detail: it never opens doors, a failed match returns the whole table, and every returned row is a pre-existing door. This goes beyond the annotation surface without contradicting it.

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 short sentences with no filler; the core action and constraints are front-loaded and every sentence contributes behavioral or usage 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 read-only lookup with a rich output schema and well-documented optional auth parameters, the description supplies the essential behavior: what it returns, what it refuses to do, and the no-match case. It is complete enough for selection and invocation, though it leaves parameter timing to the schema.

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 high (80%) and the schema already documents nonce, leave_token, signature, and public key well. The description adds only that 'want' is expressed in plain words, which is a modest enhancement over the schema's bare string type.

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 states a clear action: submit a plain-language want and receive the matching door's name and one honest sentence. It distinguishes itself from action-oriented siblings by explicitly saying it never opens a door and that unmatched requests return the full table.

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 implies its usage context: use it when you want to map a plain-language want to an existing door, and it signals that this is a lookup rather than an action ('Never opens a door for you'). It gives the no-match fallback behavior, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or spell out when not to use it.

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