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

Annotations only declare the generic write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true). The description goes well beyond that: it discloses external side effects (Google lookup and the same vetting pipeline as suggestions), the rejection conditions, the exclusivity rule, and the quota consequence ('Counts against your claim cap').

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 core action and input form are front-loaded in the first sentence, with eligibility and cost following. It is a dense paragraph rather than bulleted, and the vetting-criteria list is long, but every clause carries decision-relevant 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation here. Given a 5-parameter, zero-required write tool, the description covers inputs, eligibility, rejection, and quota impact — everything needed to decide and call correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value the schema does not: it explains the either/or input contract (name and address, or place_id) for a tool where zero parameters are marked required. That tells the agent a valid call shape the schema alone leaves ambiguous.

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 and resource ('Add a venue that is not on our list and claim it'), plus the input basis (name and street address, or Google place_id). The 'not on our list' scoping cleanly separates it from ambassador.venues.claim and ambassador.venues.suggestions without needing to open their schemas.

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?

Gives clear conditions for use: the venue must be absent from the list, supplied via name+address or place_id, and it lists the vetting gates (operating, permitted category, no existing screen, review/rating/hours score) plus the refusal case for already-claimed venues. It never names a sibling tool as the alternative for the cases it excludes, which keeps it short of a 5.

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