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

With empty annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the required mcp:write scope and the fact that the tool returns a join link, which are important behavioral traits. It does not go into error handling or side effects, but for a simple create operation this is a solid disclosure.

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 only two sentences long. It front-loads the primary action and return value, then succinctly covers the scale choice and scope requirement. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted 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?

For a 4-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, the key output (join link), the scale presets vs custom values, and the authorization scope. It leaves out details like team_id requirements, but those are adequately explained in the schema, so the overall context is sufficiently complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a note about ready-made scales and passing custom scale_values, but this largely echoes the schema's existing parameter descriptions. No significant new meaning is added beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Creates a planning poker game for a team and returns the link participants join with,' which uses a specific verb (creates) and resource (planning poker game). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like poker.games.list and poker.game.get, which are clearly different operations.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: when creating a new planning poker game. It also provides useful guidance on choosing between ready-made scales and custom scale_values. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it misses the top tier.

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