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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=false / idempotentHint=false; the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: no auth needed, 'The other person sees only the final proposal', vetoes are 'never attributed', and unknown is 'never counted as ok'. It still doesn't say whether a second call overwrites a prior answer (idempotentHint is false but the consequence is unstated).

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?

Front-loaded with audience, then the action, then the privacy constraint ('there is no field for them'), then the args shorthand and auth note. Efficient, though the inline Args blob partially duplicates the schema rather than earning new 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 nested, multi-variant tool with no output schema, the description covers the common verdict/rank path well and delegates the PSI private-times/private-venues branches to the schema's detailed field descriptions. The one gap is return behavior: with no output schema, it says what the counterparty sees but not what this call hands back to the agent.

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 the schema already documents every parameter (including the psi/psi_venues/common_* private-plan variants). The description's Args blob is a useful shorthand and clarifies rank '1 = best' and that unknown counts as non-ok, but adds no semantics beyond what the schema already states. 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Judge each option... send only a verdict and optional rank per option, and ok per time window') and pins the audience ('For the GUEST of a plan or their assistant'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, name or differentiate itself from the very close sibling ic_plans_guest_respond, which the agent must disambiguate on its own.

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?

It gives clear context: this is the guest-side answering action, and it explicitly notes 'No auth required' (the token authorizes it). It does not state when NOT to use it or name an alternative tool (e.g. ic_plans_guest_respond / ic_plans_guest_get), so the routing guidance stops just short of explicit.

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