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

With empty annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses side effects: hiding clears votes and drops the estimate, and permission requirements: 'Requires mcp:write scope'. It also reveals that the estimate is computed from votes, not set directly.

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?

The description is three sentences, each conveying essential information: main function, alternative behavior, and permissions. No superfluous words.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, side effects, permissions, and the reveal=false mode. Since there's no output schema, it could mention the return value, but the phrase 'computes its estimate' implies the result. Overall, it's complete for a straightforward tool.

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?

The schema already has descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage). The description adds context that the reveal flag controls both revealing and hiding, but this is already in the schema. No additional parameter meaning is added beyond the schema, so baseline 3.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Reveals the cards of a task and computes its estimate from the votes cast'. It also distinguishes itself by noting 'this is the only way an estimate appears, there is no way to set a number directly', which differentiates it from sibling tools.

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 description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: if you need to produce an estimate, this is the only way. It also explains the reveal=false behavior for re-votes, and states the prerequisite 'Only the team owner can change a game'.

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