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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds one useful lifecycle fact — "Nothing exists until someone starts it" — implying results are proposals, not persisted communities, and that creation requires the user's consent. It adds no detail on result volume, ranking, or empty-result behavior.

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?

It is short and has no filler, but the fragment style ("Ideas for a community near them, an activity in a town") is awkward to parse and buries the key scope constraint in a comma-spliced clause. The routing hints are useful but read as afterthoughts rather than a front-loaded statement of purpose.

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 4-parameter, zero-required discovery tool with no output schema and 25% schema coverage, the description leaves meaningful gaps: the shape of returned ideas, whether lang defaults to the user's locale, how radius_km interacts with near, and behavior when no ideas exist. The annotations carry safety, but the semantic gaps are not filled.

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 only 25%: near is documented in the schema, while lang, activity, and radius_km are not. The description partially compensates by illustrating that activity holds a named activity and that location is a town/district, but it says nothing about lang (sv/en) or radius_km units and defaults, so two parameters remain unexplained in both places.

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 conveys that this returns ideas for a community near a location, and explicitly constrains it to activities in a town ("Padel · Majorna") rather than people, which distinguishes it from find_people. However, the phrasing is telegraphic and never states a clear verb+resource like "find community ideas"; the reader must infer that the tool returns a list of candidate activities rather than an existing community.

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 names alternatives explicitly: "For a person to talk to: find_people" and points to start_community_from_idea via use_tool when someone wants to actually create one. That is genuine when/when-not routing. It stops short of stating prerequisites or what happens with zero results.

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