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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context by noting the result includes expiry and excludes content, which clarifies the tool's output scope. However, it does not disclose details like ordering, pagination, or whether expired rooms are still listed.

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 extremely concise at two short sentences, with no filler. The core scope ('rooms you host or have been invited to') is front-loaded, and the critical caveat 'No content' is stated separately for clarity.

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 parameterless, read-only listing tool with strong annotations, the description is largely complete: it explains what is returned (rooms, expiry) and what is not returned (content). The lack of an output schema is partially compensated by this description, though some additional detail about the response format could improve completeness.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The baseline of 4 applies because the schema already fully covers all parameters by virtue of there being none.

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 clearly identifies the resource as rooms the user hosts or is invited to, and specifies that it includes expiry but no content. Although it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'lists,' the tool name supplies the action, and the scope distinguishes it from content-oriented siblings like continental_room_read and continental_peek.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as continental_room_status or continental_room_read. The description implies a listing use case but does not explicitly state when it should be selected or when an alternative would be more appropriate.

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