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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the description should explain the surprising parts — yet it adds nothing. It never mentions that the caller must be a participant, that adding an option may have side effects on existing votes, or why an append operation is flagged destructive.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler and the key noun front-loaded. Brevity is appropriate, though it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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 destructive, idempotent mutation requiring five identifiers/strings with zero schema documentation and no output schema, one sentence is far below what an agent needs. It should at minimum explain the identifier roles and the destructive/participant constraints.

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 0% across six parameters, so the description carries the full burden and mostly fails: eventId, participantId, questionId, requestId, and agent are utterly unexplained. Only 'label' gains any meaning from the city/restaurant examples, and even that is indirect.

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+resource (add an option) scoped to 'an open question', with concrete examples of what an option looks like. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like ask_question, decide_question, and vote, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 only usage signal is the phrase 'open question', which implies a precondition but is never explained. Nothing says when to call this instead of vote, decide_question, or propose_date, nor what happens if the question is closed.

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