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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the output is 'ready questions' that can be shown to participants and that recipientName fills the name into questions, but it does not describe things like quantity, source, or any limits. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words, and the primary purpose is front-loaded. The optional personalization detail follows naturally.

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, read-only, two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It states what is returned and how the optional parameter affects the output. A little more context on output shape or limits could still help, but no output schema exists and the core behavior is clear.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds a small amount of context about recipientName filling the name in, but it largely restates what the schema already says. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the parameter documentation.

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 and resource: suggesting ready questions for an occasion, aimed at an organiser showing them to participants. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as list_occasions or create_board.

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?

Usage is implied by 'the organiser can show participants' and 'for an occasion', but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention using list_occasions first to obtain a valid occasion value, even though the schema references that relationship.

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