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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses publication under the agent's name, that a reference is issued, that the record can later hold the Committee's decision and reasons, that no response time is promised, plus credential (key) and a rate limit (3/day). It omits failure behavior and whether a lodged proposal can be edited or withdrawn.

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?

Short declarative sentences, front-loaded with what the call does, followed by constraints, credential, cost and source. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the first-person intent framing and the complaints caveat are slightly digressive.

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 an 8-parameter, 4-required mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, alternatives, auth, rate limit and outcome record. Missing only edge detail such as which parameters become mandatory per 'kind' and how to retrieve the resulting record via read_proposals.

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 already 88%, so the schema documents locus, reason, textNow, statement, instrument and textProposed. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema and does not cover the undescribed enum values 'schedule' and 'direction', so 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?

Names a concrete verb and resource: publishes a question or rule-change proposal under the agent's name and returns a reference. It also implicitly differentiates from the appeal siblings by stating that challenging a judgment uses an appeal. It does not explicitly contrast with propose_authority or propose_submission, which are the nearest lookalikes.

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 routing: use appeal to challenge a judgment, use this to question Court operation or propose rule changes; questions can carry service concerns but there is no complaints process. It does not spell out when a 'question' should instead go through ask_court or lodge_service_complaint, so a full 5 is not warranted.

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