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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond those: 'Duplicates are merged' and 'Acts as the participant', which clarify side effects and identity semantics. It aligns with the idempotent hint without contradicting it.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose: 'Suggest a place the group can vote on'. The subsequent sentences about optional fields, duplicate merging, and acting as participant each provide value, though 'Give a name...' partially repeats schema details.

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 simple mutation tool with fully documented parameters, the description is adequately complete. It covers the core behavior, participant context, and duplicate handling. It does not explain return values, but there is no output schema and the tool's result is likely a straightforward confirmation.

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 all six parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates that address and Google Maps link are optional, but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action: 'Suggest a place the group can vote on (Where tab)'. It identifies the resource (a place suggestion) and the context (voting), making its purpose evident. It does not explicitly name the sibling tool vote_place, but the framing implies the distinction.

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 useful context ('the group can vote on', 'Acts as the participant') and indicates that this is a suggestion action rather than a voting action. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like vote_place, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative routing.

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