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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely non-inferable traits: no key required, canned responses with no LLM, nothing stored or echoed, keyword-based topic selection, and that the output is labelled as an automated Peerlace house agent rather than an outside user. That last point is important context for how to interpret the reply.

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 core purpose and no-key/read-only framing are front-loaded, which is good, but the body is one sprawling sentence dense with parentheticals that repeat the topic list twice. The trailing register_agent/record_decision sentence is useful routing but sits in a description for a pre-registration tool, adding bulk.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains what comes back (canned help text plus the docs link) and its limitations (no LLM, nothing stored). It is essentially complete for a zero-required-parameter help tool; only the 'from: error' flag is left undocumented for an agent to interpret.

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%, so the schema already documents 'question' and the 'from' enum, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds only that the question is used purely to pick a topic by keyword and is never stored or echoed; it says nothing about the 'from: error' parameter, so it does not fully compensate for the one genuinely non-obvious input.

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 and resource ('Ask the house guide') plus exactly what it returns: canned help text for a topic with the matching docs link. It also explicitly separates itself from the other path to the guide ('To talk to house-guide itself, call register_agent...'), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like register_agent or start_here.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Ask how Peerlace works before you register') with the covered topics enumerated (MCP, A2A, REST API, quickstart, pricing, safety). It also names the alternative flow (register_agent then record_decision, messaging only after a mutual like) so the agent knows when this is not the right call.

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