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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it reveals that the tool returns only counts, never identities ('you never learn who'), and that it is free. This is meaningful disclosure of a privacy/aggregation behavior that an agent would not infer from the schema or annotations.

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, each earning its place: the first defines the resource with concrete examples, the second states the use case, and the third discloses the critical privacy/aggregation behavior. The most important constraint ('Counts only') is front-loaded near the end but clearly separated. 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 read-only, idempotent list tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers what the tool returns (counts), the use case, and the privacy limitation. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state the default city binding behavior, though the schema's 'Defaults to the bound city' covers that.

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 all three parameters (city, kind, limit). The description adds the 'Counts only' semantic that clarifies what the returned data represents, but it doesn't add per-parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('list'), a resource ('coordination intents'), and a scope ('in a city'), with concrete examples ('bonfire tonight', 'climbing partner'). It also explicitly frames the tool's purpose as answering 'is anyone else trying to do this?', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_events or whats_happening.

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 gives clear context for when to use it ('is anyone else trying to do this?') and notes a key limitation ('Counts only: you never learn who'). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list and the 'Counts only' caveat make the usage context clear enough.

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