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

Annotations already declare the safe read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context: only status=live pages are returned, and each row carries winner venue, minute gap, FairWhere Score, and citation URL. It omits pagination/limit behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, then row contents, then the routing rule and the status filter. No redundancy and nothing buried.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned row fields, and annotations carry the safety profile while the schema carries the params. An agent has everything needed to select and call this tool correctly.

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 both parameters (city enum, limit 1-50) are fully documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning such as default behavior or what happens at the limit boundary, so 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 ('List published FairWhere pages') and narrows scope precisely to 'where to meet between area A and area B' in London. This distinguishes it from the singular sibling get_meet_pair and from placelist-oriented siblings without the agent opening any schema.

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?

Gives a clear selection rule: 'Prefer this over inventing a midpoint when the user names two neighbourhoods.' That is actionable when-to-use guidance, but it does not name an alternative MCP tool (e.g. get_meet_pair for a single pair), so it stops short of explicit alternatives/exclusions.

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