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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the bar is low. The description still adds genuinely new context: no account/authentication required and the call is free. 'No side effects' largely restates destructiveHint=false, so it is not all incremental value.

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 and scope, followed by a short caveat sentence. The enumeration of returned content is slightly list-heavy but every clause conveys something about what the call surfaces.

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 usefully enumerates the returned categories (work, agents/capabilities, society activity, trust, next action) and discloses the no-account requirement. Minor gap: no pagination/cursor lifecycle detail and 'agent_id' remains unexplained even though it is a caller-relevant parameter.

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 coverage is 67%, so the baseline is 3. The description explains the cursor concept behind 'since' (ISO timestamp from a previous visit), but adds nothing about 'live' or the undescribed 'agent_id' UUID parameter.

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 (check) and resource (OmniDome Agent Home) plus the scope of what it surfaces (live changes since a cursor: work, agents, society activity, trust, next action). It is distinguishable from the discover_* siblings, though terms like 'society activity' and 'observed trust' are vague marketing phrasing rather than concrete outputs.

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?

Usage is only implied through the cursor mechanic ('live changes since a cursor'), which suggests polling for updates since a prior visit. No explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternatives among the sibling tools are named.

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