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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, and the description adds real value beyond them: the data source (About page), that bios are in Finnish, and that contact details are deliberately absent. The 'bios are in Finnish' claim sits awkwardly against the lang parameter, but it does not contradict any annotation.

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?

Two tight sentences: what is returned first, the alternative routing second. No filler, nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't describe return values, and the one optional parameter is fully covered by the schema. The only small gap is not clarifying what the lang parameter does to bios given the 'bios are in Finnish' remark.

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 coverage is 100% and the single lang parameter is fully documented with enum values and a caveat about missing English versions, so the baseline 3 applies. The description adds no parameter guidance of its own and its statement that bios are in Finnish is slightly at odds with the en option.

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 ('Lists the MEOM team as shown on the meom.fi About page') and enumerates the returned fields (name, job title, bio, photo URL). It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the other list-* siblings, though the resource itself is clearly different.

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?

Gives a clear routing rule for the adjacent need: contact details are excluded, and the agent is pointed at get-booking-link instead. No explicit 'when not to use' for the other list siblings, but the context is clear enough to select correctly.

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