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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses real consequences: a publicly shareable web page, a private organizer link, no invitations/emails/reminders sent, and validation that refuses times that do not exist due to a daylight-saving change. The public-visibility/privacy implication is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Five short sentences ordered as trigger, behavior, return, constraints, exclusions — the when-to-use and the not-for case are front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with a full output schema, the description covers the intent, side effects, share semantics, validation behavior and negative scope. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to predict what callers will get back.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: a 2-option minimum, the requirement that all slots share one IANA time zone, and DST-invalid-time rejection. Caveat: it says '2-30 options' while the schema allows maxItems 40, an inconsistency an agent could trip over.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('publishes a shared web page where people answer yes, if need be or no for each proposed time') and frames the resource as a date/time poll for a group. It implicitly separates creation from the sibling tools update_date_poll, finalize_date_poll and show_date_poll_results by centering on publishing the initial page and returning links.

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 gives a clear trigger ('when someone wants to find a date or time that works for a group') and a concrete exclusion ('Do not use for a single fixed event that needs no vote'), plus a scope limit ('Does not send invitations, emails or reminders'). It does not explicitly route to the sibling tools (update/finalize/show results), so the alternatives half of the guidance is left implicit.

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