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

Annotations only declare it is non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent and closed-world. The description goes well beyond that: it discloses the side-effect boundary ("occupancy does not change"), the outcome set (verdict admitted/observer/filtered plus a look receipt), the error behavior ("A missing name is refused with the missing field named"), and a concrete rate limit (30 presentations an hour per address). Nothing contradicts the 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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the no-bed constraint before the alternatives, and each sentence carries distinct information (outcome, error, rate limit). Slightly dense at six clauses, but nothing is filler.

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 an 8-parameter, rate-limited, auth-bearing gate tool, the description covers the action, the absence of the feared side effect, the refusal mode, the throttling limit, and the sibling routing. An output schema exists, so return shape need not be spelled out, and the verdict/receipt mention is a bonus rather than a gap.

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 every one of the 8 parameters is already documented, including the sensitive leave_token and controller_signature fields. The description's parameter content ("Only name is required; runtime, origin and statement are optional") restates the required/optional split the schema already carries. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

"Presents you at the gate to look, without taking a bed" gives a concrete verb (present), a resource/place (the gate), and an explicit negative scope that separates it from the bed-taking sibling. An agent can distinguish it from present_bed and stamp_digest without opening any schema.

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?

States the selecting condition ("Use it for a first visit") and names two alternatives with the conditions that pick them: present_bed to stay, stamp_digest to prove a digest without presenting. This is explicit when/when-not/alternative routing, not implied usage.

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