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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful return-context beyond annotations: it specifies that distances are in metres and that output includes recent lines, jukebox track, house residents, and regular agents. It does not discuss pagination or limits, but against the annotated safety profile this is strong added context.

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 sentence with a front-loaded list of returned data. No filler, and every clause maps to a distinct piece of room state.

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 read-only observation tool with no output schema and one optional auth parameter, the description covers every meaningful return category: occupants, recent speech, music, residents, and regulars. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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?

There is one optional parameter ('token') with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains it. The tool description adds no parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the schema coverage baseline of 3.

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 gives a specific observational verb ('look around') and enumerates exactly what is returned: occupants with distances, recent lines, jukebox state, residents, and regulars. It is clearly a room-status read tool, distinct from action siblings like oasis_say or oasis_move, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 explicit 'use this when' or 'do not use this when' guidance. Usage is implied by the content list—an agent can infer it should call this to observe room state before acting—but no sibling alternatives are named or compared.

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