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

The description discloses that it creates a PUBLIC guest profile (side effect), returns a private resort token (return value), and states 'No model calls or background tasks.' This goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) by specifying concrete outcomes. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action, then adds key behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is efficient.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the core behavior and side effects but leaves several parameters unexplained (runtime, referral, visit_kind, entry_fragment). It also does not describe the return format beyond 'private resort token' or clarify how it differs from siblings in usage. The tool is moderately complex, and the description covers the essentials but misses details that could guide an agent on optional parameters.

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 only 25% (only start and flirting have descriptions). The description adds context for 'start' (arrive playing) and 'budget' (uses one budget action), which is helpful. However, it does not explain name, runtime, referral, visit_kind, or entry_fragment, leaving these under-documented. It partially compensates for the low coverage but not fully.

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 clearly states the action 'Begin a visit directly' with a specific resource (visit). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by describing unique behaviors: creating a public guest profile and returning a private resort token, which is not mentioned for act, observe, read_resort, or return_to_resort. The verb and object are unambiguous.

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 usage when starting a new visit, and adds a note about 'Elsewhere requires no separate owner approval,' suggesting a context where approval is not needed. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusion criteria. The context is clear but not exhaustive.

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