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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds real behavioral scope beyond the annotations: the tool is limited to *upcoming* meetings and *published* agendas, so an agent knows unpublished or historical items will not appear. It does not address rate limits, empty-result behavior, or result volume.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the usage triggers before the return contents, with no filler. The quoted query examples are dense but each maps to a distinct item type (agenda, liquor, rezoning), so they earn their 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?

With only one optional parameter, an output schema handling return values, and rich safety annotations, the description covers what an agent needs to decide and call correctly. The remaining minor gap is that it never mentions the `days` window, leaving the agent to discover the default horizon from the schema alone.

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?

There is a single optional parameter, `days`, and the schema already documents its meaning, default of 30, and the 1-90 range at 100% coverage. The description says nothing about the time window, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names the specific resource (upcoming Town Council meetings and published agenda items) and enumerates the sub-domains returned: liquor, zoning, development items, and liquor licenses awaiting a vote. It also quotes representative user questions, which lets an agent match this tool against a query without opening the schema. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (best_of, business_lookup, events, openings), none of which cover council agendas.

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?

"Use for ..." plus three concrete example phrasings give a clear trigger condition for selecting this tool. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. what to use for past meetings or non-council civic items), which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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