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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies an asynchronous path ('tomorrow's census') and states URL eligibility, but says nothing about idempotency, authentication needs, whether nominations are publicly visible, or what happens when a URL fails validation — all material for a submission tool.

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?

Two short sentences with the purpose first and the eligibility restriction second; no filler, and the most important constraint is not buried.

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 two-parameter submission tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers intent and eligibility but omits outcome and failure behavior. It is minimally sufficient to attempt correct invocation, not to predict the result.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully qualifies the required `url` parameter (public, http(s), ports 80/443), but the `kind` parameter is never mentioned beyond the enum being self-explanatory; partial compensation only.

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 gives a specific verb ('ask ... to be added') and resource ('public MCP or A2A endpoint'), plus the destination ('tomorrow's census'), so the action is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like agentrecord_submit_receipt or agentrecord_census, leaving that differentiation to inference.

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?

Useful eligibility constraints are stated ('Only public http(s) URLs on ports 80/443'), which tell the agent when a nomination is valid. However, there is no guidance on when to nominate versus consult agentrecord_census or agentrecord_lookup, nor on whether repeat nominations are allowed.

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