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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the value is 'settled', it is 'public', it includes 'labeled house advertisements', and 'Does not bid or pay' clarifies this is a pure read with no financial side effect.

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 the core action and followed by a clarifying negative constraint. Both sentences earn their place, though the phrasing is slightly dense ('settled public Spotlight').

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and rich annotations cover the safety profile. The description is essentially complete for a zero-required-parameter read tool, with only the sibling-selection guidance left implicit.

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 the single parameter includeHouseAds is already fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'including labeled house advertisements' gestures at the same concept but adds no syntax or behavior beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 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 states a precise verb and resource ('Read the currently displayed settled public Spotlight') and adds the scope qualifier 'current', which separates it from the sibling get_spotlight. It does not explicitly name the siblings it differs from, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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: 'currently displayed' suggests this is the live/active variant versus list_spotlights or get_spotlight, but the description never states when to choose this tool over those siblings. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are given.

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