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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful framing: this is a static orientation/overview rather than live data (contrast with floors_now), which is the key behavioral distinction an agent needs.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded, with no filler. It is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic about the entity name, but nothing is wasted.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema, read-only overview tool, the description covers what an agent needs to decide to call it first. It could note the kind of content returned (static orientation text vs live state), but the gap is minor at this complexity.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema shows. Baseline 4 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?

The description names the resource clearly: an orientation/overview of 'De 5ch001' covering what it is, who it is for, and layout ('where everything is'). That distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like how_to_enter or floors_now, though 'where everything is' stays slightly vague.

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?

'Start here' is a real, explicit usage cue telling the agent to call this first. But it gives no guidance on what to call next, no exclusions, and no naming of alternatives such as culture or anchors that might cover overlapping ground.

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