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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false and the description is consistent with them. It adds real behavior beyond the annotations: this is a dry run, it produces no output, it incurs no session charge, and the reference is optional — cost and output semantics are exactly what an agent needs and cannot get from the 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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the core identity (free dry-run) is front-loaded ahead of the optional-parameter note and the sibling pointer. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-optional-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials — no output is produced, no charge, safe dry run, and where the real action lives. It stops short of explaining what the 'invitation' itself represents, but nothing critical to correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100% and account_ref is fully documented in the schema (persistent scope, reuse, omit-for-default). The description only adds 'a reference is optional,' which restates the schema's omission guidance rather than adding syntax or meaning. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 specific verb/resource combination — a free, dry-run Return Chamber invitation that produces no output — and explicitly names the sibling it is not (eclypse_return_record). The domain term 'Return Chamber invitation' is jargon, but an agent can still tell this is a non-committing preview distinct from the recording tool.

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 routes the agent to the alternative with an explicit condition: 'To close an owned visit and receive a signed artifact use eclypse_return_record.' Combined with 'free dry-run' and 'no output or session charge,' the when-to-use case is clear, though it never states the positive trigger for picking this tool over simply skipping the call.

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