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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the tour is 'private' and that the scene must come from find_tour_spaces, but says nothing about what the call returns (a tour id presumably needed by draft_tour/save_tour), rate limits, or permission requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that carries the action, the scope, and the follow-up tools with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 creation tool with no output schema and no annotation coverage of returns or auth, the description should indicate what is produced (the new tour's id/handle) since that is required to chain into draft_tour/save_tour. It hints at the chain but leaves the handoff identifier and permission requirements unstated, so it is only partially complete.

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 only 33%: scene_id is documented in the schema, while kind and title are not. The description partially compensates by mapping the two enum values to prose ('guided tour or scavenger hunt'), which clarifies the kind parameter, but 'title' is never addressed and no format or defaults are given.

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 and resource ('Starts a private guided tour or scavenger hunt') plus the object it acts on ('a space from find_tour_spaces'), and names the sibling tools that continue the workflow (draft_tour, save_tour). An agent can place this tool in the create-vs-fill pipeline 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?

Gives an explicit ordering: get a scene via find_tour_spaces, create the tour here, then fill it with draft_tour or save_tour. That is clear context and names alternatives, but it does not state exclusions — e.g. when an agent should skip create_tour and go straight to save_tour, or what happens if a tour already exists for that scene.

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