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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the output artifact's structure (agenda, questions, roles, deferred-feedback list), which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then a compressed enumeration of outputs. The parenthetical stage list is a little dense but every clause carries information.

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, five-parameter planning tool with no return schema, the description tells the agent what it will get back in enough shape to judge relevance. It would be stronger with a note on how minutes/goal/audience interact, but nothing essential 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 coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented with descriptions and an enum. The description only restates the stage values and gestures at the stage affecting the questions; it adds no format or interaction detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Plan a design critique') and enumerates the deliverables: framing statement, timed agenda, stage-fit questions, roles, deferred feedback. That distinguishes it from siblings like lint_design_feedback or build_heuristic_report only implicitly — the description never names those 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?

The stage enumeration implies this is for sessions at any of six stages, which is useful scoping, but there is no explicit 'use this when…' or exclusion versus the closely related lint_design_feedback or heuristic_worksheet.

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