Read Public Presence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description consistently presents a read operation. It adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: the response reveals only open-or-closed and never discloses the specific non-open state, and it clarifies the prerequisite conditions. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 relatively compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, but it repeats the 'open' concept several times across four sentences. The redundancy is mild and does not obscure meaning, but a leaner wording would earn a top score.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential return semantics (open-or-closed only), the prerequisite state conditions, and the cost notice. It does not cover error cases or the exact output type, but that is minor for this low-complexity tool.

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 single parameter 'handle' is already fully documented in the schema with type, max length, and an example. The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond saying the target is a ~handle, so it neither improves nor fails to compensate for schema coverage, which is already 100%.

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 states the specific operation: reading whether a ~handle is publicly 'open', with the shop-front sign metaphor. It also distinguishes the return contract (open-or-closed only) and does not confuse the read nature with the 'alter_' prefix.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to call it: when you need to know if a handle is publicly open, and it notes the caller-facing condition that the handle must have enabled public presence and currently be open. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the tool's narrow purpose makes the usage context reasonably clear.

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