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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and destructive hints. The description adds useful behavioral context: membership is required, and hosts cannot simply leave—they must burn instead. No contradiction with 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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the core action, and the host exception is a valuable second sentence. Minor redundancy with the title keeps it from a 5.

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 single-parameter tool with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient: it states membership scope and the host exception. It does not explain the return value or consequences of leaving, but no output schema exists and complexity is low.

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 0%, and the description provides no guidance about room_id beyond the schema's own name and UUID format. The parameter is self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the low coverage as required.

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 action ('Leave') and resource ('a Parlor') and adds the scope 'you are a member of,' which distinguishes it from room_burn. It does not explicitly name the sibling tool, but the role-based distinction is present.

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 gives a clear use condition (must be a member) and a when-not-to-use signal: 'Hosts burn instead of leaving.' This points to the alternative burn behavior, though it does not name continental_room_burn explicitly.

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