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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) indicate a non-destructive write operation. The description adds that the user must be a host, which is useful. However, it does not disclose what happens on success (e.g., returns meal ID), potential side effects, or the exact effect on the event's culinary plan.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and then listing key details. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy. It efficiently conveys the critical information.

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 creation tool with 14 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the required fields and main concept but misses some optional parameters. It does not explain return values or how the meal is integrated into the live event, leaving some gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It lists several parameters with examples: 'kind (breakfast/lunch/dinner/snack/special), serve time (required), title, status (planning … served), expected diners, stations, shopping list, estimated cost ($).' This partially covers the 14 parameters but omits tags, notes, place_id, project_id, and description, leaving ambiguity.

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 purpose: 'Add a meal to a live event's culinary plan' and lists key fields (kind, serve_time, title, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the event context and required parameters like event_id, kind, and serve_at.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Requires event_id + kind + serve_at; you must be a host.' This tells the agent when and under what conditions to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like update_meal_menu.

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