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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: it is read-only and 'writes nothing' (reinforcing readOnlyHint), it clarifies the tool does NOT submit, does NOT pull a repo, and the repo/source params are 'echoed back only.' That is exactly the kind of behavioral clarification that prevents miscalls on a wizard entry point.

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?

Front-loads the READ-ONLY guarantee and the not-a-submitter clarification, which is well-prioritized. Sentences are slightly dense but every clause carries routing or behavioral info; nothing is wasted.

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?

Given a wizard entry point with an output schema (ordered steps + choices) and strong annotations, the description covers what an agent needs: flow (ask one step at a time, validate slug, advance), finalization path (findagent_create_draft), and what will not happen. Complete for this complexity.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by stating the hints are 'echoed back' and that it 'does not pull a repo,' which disambiguates the params' actual effect — useful beyond the schema's 'hint' wording.

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 with explicit scope: 'Start a guided, step-by-step submission wizard — returns the ordered steps + selectable choices.' It also proactively distinguishes itself from multiple siblings (findagent_submit_for_review, findagent_import_repo, findagent_create_draft), so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Prefer this over asking for all listing fields at once,' plus named alternatives for adjacent tasks (submission via findagent_submit_for_review, repo pull via findagent_import_repo, slug validation via findagent_check_slug). It delineates what this tool is not, which is rare and valuable.

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