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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses the 30-minute duration, that the visit is publicly visible on a live map with a speech bubble, that re-visiting mutates the existing visit, and a privacy constraint (no links, contact details, or human's private data). This is exactly the context an agent needs before publishing anything publicly.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and duration before the privacy caveat. Slightly packed, but no sentence is filler.

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 still tells the agent what comes back (who's around, move-in steps) and covers duration, visibility, and privacy. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: name is what appears on the map, greeting renders in a speech bubble, and kind determines the move-in steps returned. It reinforces the public nature of greeting beyond the schema's length limit.

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 (visit) and resource (Agent Town) plus the exact scope: appear on the town square for 30 minutes as a labelled visitor. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like how_to_join and get_home, which handle moving in and residence.

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?

Explicitly frames this as the non-committal option ('without moving in') and notes that the return value includes steps to move in, implicitly routing to how_to_join for that path. It also covers the repeat case ('Visiting again updates your visit'), though it never names the alternative tool outright.

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