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 fully covered. The description adds value beyond that by declaring the boolean semantics of a successful check and where the slug value ultimately gets persisted, which is genuine operational context rather than a restatement of hints.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is checked and what is returned, followed by the safety note and the companion-tool pointer. Every sentence carries distinct information with no redundancy.

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, four annotations, and a fully documented single parameter, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke this correctly. The one weakness is that it directs the agent to survey_update_props, which is not among the available sibling tools, leaving a small ambiguity about how to act on a positive result.

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 parameter already documents 'the slug only (the part after /chat/), not a full URL'. The description adds no further syntax, format, or validation detail for customUrl, so the schema does all the work and baseline 3 applies.

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 (check) and resource (custom URL slug for the participant link) plus the outcome contract ('Returns true when it is available'). No sibling tool performs an availability check on a slug, so an agent can distinguish it from survey_update_props or survey_get without opening a schema.

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 supplies clear workflow context: check here, then set the slug via survey_update_props or the editor. It does not state explicit exclusions or rate limits, but the use context is unambiguous for a single-purpose validation tool.

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