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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it does not open doors, it returns the whole table when no match exists, and every returned row is an existing door. This aligns with readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint and provides assurance about the tool's non-mutating nature.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the metaphor 'The concierge' and immediate behavioral keys. Each sentence earns its place, though 'Every row is a door that already exists' is somewhat redundant with the overall concept and could be trimmed without losing much.

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 simple lookup tool with an output schema already present and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It explains core behavior, no-match handling, and non-opening semantics. It doesn't mention authentication parameters, but those are fully described in the schema and are optional (required parameters: 0).

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds clarity to the primary parameter 'want' by specifying it should be in plain words, but it does not explain the auth-related parameters; those are covered by the schema descriptions, so the description's contribution is modest.

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 clear purpose: given plain-language input ({want}), return the door's name and one honest sentence. The concierge metaphor is slightly ambiguous but 'Never opens a door for you' clarifies that this tool identifies/selects a door rather than acting as one, which distinguishes it from sibling door tools.

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?

It implies when to use: when you need to express a want in plain words and get the matching door. It also says no match returns the whole table, which tells an agent what to expect in a failure case. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, leaving room for inference about when not to use it.

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