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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'Read-only' and adds 'open to anyone,' which is useful auth context. It also discloses the content returned, exceeding what annotations alone provide.

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 sentences, each earning its place: content summary, access/safety, and usage triggers. It is slightly dense in the first sentence, but information is front-loaded and there is no 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool, the description is fully sufficient: it describes the return payload, the access model, and the two decision points where the data matters. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit enumeration of what a room record contains.

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 and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline for zero-parameter tools applies; no parameter information is needed.

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?

Description identifies a concrete resource—rooms—and enumerates the data each entry carries (scope, requester words, work coverage, built artifacts), which is far more than a tautology. It also distinguishes the tool from the surrounding read_* family by positioning it as the room list and referencing the actions that consume it.

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 says to run this before propose_zone and before build_in_room, and explains why: avoiding duplicate rooms and identifying scopes that still need a room. It does not state when not to use it relative to other read tools, but the directive is concrete and actionable.

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