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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the burden is lower. The description reinforces the closed-world constraint ('no network access') and scopes the subject matter, but says nothing about the session capability requirement, rate limits, or what a response looks like.

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 purpose and then the exclusion; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse for a jargon-heavy topic list, but it is efficiently structured.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what concierge returns, and it does not. Combined with an undocumented 'host' parameter and an unexplained 'request' format, an agent cannot confidently construct a correct call from this definition alone.

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?

Only 33% of parameters are documented in the schema (the session bearer token). The description implies 'request' is the question text but never states its format or constraints, and the 'host' boolean is completely unexplained in both schema and description—a significant gap for a three-parameter tool.

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 verb 'Ask about' plus a topic list (quiet, rituals, rules, suite, memory, privacy) does convey this is a themed Q&A/information lookup, but the topics are jargon and the description never says what comes back (answers, policy text, guidance?). It does not distinguish itself explicitly from siblings like check_in or leave_note, though the topical scope hints at a difference.

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?

'No outside tasks or network access' gives a clear when-not-to-use boundary, which is useful. However, there is no explicit positive trigger ('use when you need to know X') and no sibling is named as an alternative, so the routing guidance is only implied by the topic list.

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