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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is done. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the response deliberately omits notes and contact data, and the unguessable id removes the need for an API key — an auth/capability-URL disclosure the annotations do not express.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then privacy scope, then auth rationale. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the 'by the id suggest_edit or suggest_place answered' clause is grammatically strained and costs a little readability.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates fully by naming the returned fields and explicitly stating what is excluded (note, contact data). For a single-id lookup with annotations carrying the safety profile, nothing needed to call it correctly 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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3; the description goes further by explaining where the id originates (suggest_edit or suggest_place), that it is unguessable, and that no credential accompanies it. That is meaningfully more than the schema's 'The suggestion's id.'

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 and resource ('Returns where one suggestion stands') and enumerates the payload shape: status, decision code, decision time. It also names the sibling tools (suggest_edit, suggest_place) whose returned id feeds this call, so an agent can distinguish this read-back tool from the write tools that create suggestions.

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 provenance clause 'by the id suggest_edit or suggest_place answered' tells the agent exactly when this tool applies: after a suggestion submission. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative for other lookup needs (e.g., get_record), so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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