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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial value beyond that: the full return shape, the multi-condition `promo` visibility rules, and the password exception ('A password still keeps a Promo hatch off the carousel'). It omits edge behavior such as what happens when neither identifier is supplied (0 required params).

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by return shape, promo rules, use case, and the alternative. The promo sentence is dense but every clause conveys real gating logic; minor length creep but no filler sentences.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly by enumerating the compact view fields. Gaps are minor: no guidance on the 0-required-param case, error behavior, or the legacy `tenantId` alias.

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 baseline is 3; the schema already documents `slug`, `hatchId`, and the `tenantId` legacy alias. The description names the two primary parameters but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, and never mentions `tenantId`.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve a roost by `slug` or `hatchId`', and explicitly distinguishes itself from `list` ('To see every hatch in a workspace, use `list` instead'). An agent can identify the tool's function and its primary alternative without opening any schema.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('recover state across turns when the user mentions their site without giving you the hatchId') and names the alternative tool with the condition that selects it ('To see every hatch in a workspace, use `list` instead'). Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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