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

Annotations already declare the write-ish, non-destructive, idempotent profile, and the description adds context annotations cannot: the submission is human-reviewed and 'nothing is promised,' which sets expectations about delayed, uncertain outcomes. It stops short of saying what the call returns or how the review is communicated back.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: action, outcome uncertainty, and usage constraint. The routing rule is front-loaded at the end where it is most actionable, with no filler.

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 one-param submission tool with no output schema, the description covers what is submitted, who handles it, and when to use it. The only real gap is post-submission behavior (confirmation, rejection), which is minor given the stated no-promise policy.

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% and the single url parameter is already documented with the same platform list, so the description adds essentially nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate for a one-parameter tool whose schema does the work.

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 ('Send the team a ... link to a trend that isn't on Jump on the Trend yet') and names the accepted sources (TikTok, Instagram, YouTube). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_trends or get_trend, which retrieve rather than submit.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Only use it when the person wants a trend that search_trends didn't find.' That is a named alternative plus the condition that selects this tool, so no inference is required.

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