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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it is volatile and source-stamped, advising confirmation at visitthecapitol.gov. It also explains that universal weapon/hazard bans are always returned. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise: three focused sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and key zones. The second sentence adds zone-specific details. The third sentence notes volatility and verification. No wasted words; front-loaded with core information.

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?

Given the tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the input well but does not explain the return format or structure. It mentions that universal bans are always included, but an agent might benefit from knowing the output schema. However, the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint mitigate some need for complete transparency.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single required parameter 'zone' with an enum. The description adds semantic value by explaining what each zone entails (e.g., capitol_cvc is strictest, no food/water; office_building allows food/drink). This goes beyond the schema description 'Which area you're entering'.

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 tool's purpose: listing prohibited items for different zones of the Capitol complex. It specifies the exact zones and their restrictions, distinguishing what cannot be brought in. This is a specific verb-resource pairing that differentiates it from sibling tools like check_access or find_room.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when entering different areas of the Capitol. It details each zone's restrictions and includes a note about volatility and verification. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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