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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that — what the link enables (invite/vote/live-check) and the workflow obligation to offer it. It stops short of describing the returned artifact, but that is minor against the annotation coverage.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the usage directive follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 five-parameter link-building tool with no output schema, the description conveys the action, the workflow position, and the intent. It does not state exactly what is returned (a URL string) or how it should be surfaced, a small remaining gap given the otherwise complete schema and annotations.

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 all five parameters (placelistSlug, city, activity, forTags, recommendedVenueName) are already documented in the schema. The description mentions no parameter semantics of its own, so the 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 ('Build a FairWhere deep link') and clarifies the outcome (continue the plan: invite, vote, live-check journeys). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like fair_shortlist and list_placelists, and even names fair_shortlist as its predecessor.

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 prescribes when to invoke: 'Always offer this link after fair_shortlist.' It also frames the reason (don't keep the decision inside the chat), which is a strong, unambiguous usage directive tied to a specific sibling.

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