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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: entries are returned oldest-first, each step carries the status recorded at that step, and the lifecycle state machine (pending → under-review → hearing → approved/denied) is disclosed. It stops short of discussing resolution failure behavior or pagination beyond the limit param.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then clearly delimited WHEN / WHEN NOT / EXAMPLES blocks. Every line earns its place and nothing is repeated from structured fields unnecessarily.

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 not be re-explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description still supplies the ordering guarantee, the lifecycle vocabulary, and the sibling routing, 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 description coverage is 100%, so q, city, limit, and application_id are all documented in the schema itself, including the q-ignored-when-id-set rule and the UUID format. The description adds examples showing q+city together but no semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: it returns how a development project moved through meetings, with named application types (rezone, subdivision, site plan, CUP, build). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the policy-oriented sibling issue_timeline. An agent can tell this apart from search_meetings or issue_timeline 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?

Explicit WHEN examples ('What's the status of the Silo Park development?') and WHEN NOT routing to issue_timeline for policy issues and search_meetings for quotes. The alternative selection conditions are spelled out rather than inferred.

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