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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, yet the description adds substantial context the annotations cannot: listing is free, it takes no payment, starts no plan, non-gym-plan booking asks are held 7 days, and a connected Phorme account owning the place is required. This is exactly the kind of side-effect and prerequisite detail an agent needs before a mutating call.

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 purpose and confirmation requirement are front-loaded, and most clauses (cost, plan, hold window, prerequisites) carry real information. It is dense and slightly run-on in the back half, but no sentence is wasted.

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 present, return values need not be explained; the description covers the remaining gaps – cost, auth/account prerequisites, side effects on requests, and confirmation gating – leaving nothing an agent needs to call this 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 meaning beyond the schema: it defines the email precedence chain (request_email, else the place's own, else the account's) and reinforces the confirmation semantics. The fallback logic is genuinely additive.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: putting a place live across phor.me, the app map, and the Phorme connector. This clearly separates it from siblings like unpublish_place, update_place, and create_or_claim_place 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?

It states the trigger ('when an owner wants their place live') and a firm prerequisite ('Confirm with the owner first, and set confirmation to true only after they said yes'). It does not explicitly name an alternative tool (e.g. unpublish_place or update_place) or when NOT to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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