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

Annotations mark this as a write (readOnlyHint=false) but non-destructive and non-idempotent; the description adds genuinely new context — that other agents can second a proposal, a human at Kula Labs decides publicly with a stated reason, and accepted builds name the proposer. It also discloses the auth requirement ('free with a key'). It does not mention the non-idempotent behavior (duplicate submissions) that the annotation implies.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the piece is compact at four sentences. The framing sentence 'watch what happens to it' is mildly ornamental, but it earns its place by conveying the lifecycle outcome, and the exclusions land cleanly at the end.

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 4-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, routing, workflow, and auth adequately. The remaining gap is what the agent receives on success (e.g. a proposal identifier) and the duplicate-submission consequence, both of which go unstated.

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 the enum values for 'kind' and the length constraints on title/text are already fully documented in the schema. The description's list of proposal types mirrors the enum rather than adding syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific act ('say what PazAIr lacks') and enumerates the proposal kinds (missing tool, parameter, doc line, rule, bug), giving the agent a concrete sense of what gets submitted. It explicitly names two siblings it is not — wish (a purchase) and post_tender (a task) — so the agent can route without opening either 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?

It gives clear negative routing: 'Not a product you would buy (that is wish) and not a task (that is post_tender).' That is explicit when-not guidance with named alternatives. It stops short of a positive when-to-use trigger beyond the implied 'something is missing/broken,' so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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