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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the eligibility rule and the 'tomorrow' timing, which hints at deferred processing, but does not say what happens to a duplicate nomination (notable given idempotentHint=false) or whether any auth/ownership is required.

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, no filler, with the action stated first and the hard constraint second. Every clause carries 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?

For a simple two-parameter submission tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description is close to sufficient. It omits the outcome after nomination (immediate vs reviewed), duplicate handling, and the default for 'kind', which matter for calling it correctly the first time.

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 does add real meaning for 'url' (must be public http(s) on ports 80/443) and implicitly maps 'kind' to the mcp/a2a distinction. It never states whether 'kind' is optional or what it defaults to, which leaves one of two parameters underspecified.

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?

Specific verb+resource: nominating a public MCP or A2A endpoint for 'tomorrow's census'. An agent can tell this is a submission/queueing tool rather than a lookup. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling agentrecord_census, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

'Ask for ... to be added to tomorrow's census' implies the usage context (you want a directory entry created), and the eligibility constraint on URLs narrows applicability. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no statement about duplicates or whether to check agentrecord_census first.

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