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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description consistently reinforces that this does not change the floor. It also adds useful return context by naming the holder, the time since transmission started, and the waiting queue, though it omits prerequisites like room membership.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It defines the operation, the non-mutating behavior, and the returned state clearly.

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-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the description is complete enough: it explains what is returned and confirms no mutation, while the schema handles room_id sourcing.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with room_id already documented as being returned by mTALK_open. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (PTT room's floor state), and clarifies the scope: holder, since when, and waiting queue. It is clearly distinguishable from state-changing siblings like mTALK_press, mTALK_release, and mTALK_join.

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 phrase 'without changing it' clearly signals this is the read-only observation tool, but it does not explicitly name alternatives such as mTALK_press or mTALK_release or state when polling is appropriate.

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