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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds useful context: the data is derived live from planner tables rather than a fixed example list, and it discloses the success payload keys and that results come back as structuredContent plus JSON text. It repeats 'Read-only and free', which is largely redundant with the 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?

The purpose is front-loaded, but the middle sentences are dense and awkwardly worded ('Places are some places with validated venues'), and the 'Read-only and free' clause duplicates annotation data. The legal-drinking-age note, while relevant, is tacked on at the end.

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 zero parameters, full annotation coverage and an output schema present, the description is more than sufficient: it explains the data provenance, the return keys and the routing to the planning tool. The main omission is any contrast with the other venue-listing siblings, which matters given how many of them exist.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed by framing the call as a plain retrieval.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it returns the planner's supported places, route styles and vibes. It also scopes the result ('some places with validated venues: not a ranking and not a coverage claim'), which prevents an agent from misreading it as a ranked venue list. It is clear but the phrasing is slightly convoluted, and it does not distinguish itself from list_venues or find_places.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent: 'For a route, call drinkedin_plan_evening,' which is a concrete alternative with a selecting condition. It lacks guidance on when to prefer this over drinkedin_list_venues or drinkedin_find_places, which are the other plausible sources of place data among the siblings.

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