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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that the tool returns steps and choices, that repo/source hints are echoed back only, and that it does not actually pull a repository. This is useful but not exhaustive.

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?

The description is information-dense but every clause earns its place: purpose, output, interaction pattern, validation step, finalization step, and exclusion of repo pulling. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains 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?

The description is complete for a wizard tool: it explains what is returned, how the agent should guide the user, which sibling tools to use for validation and finalization, and what the optional parameters do not do. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to describe return values in the description.

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 both parameters are documented. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that repo/source hints are only echoed back and that the tool does not perform a repo import, which prevents an agent from assuming side effects.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Start a guided, step-by-step submission wizard' and immediately defines the key output: ordered steps plus selectable choices. It also distinguishes itself from related tools by explicitly saying it does not pull a repo and that repo import belongs to findagent_import_repo.

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?

The description gives explicit usage direction: prefer this over asking for all listing fields at once, ask one step at a time, validate slugs via findagent_check_slug, and finalize with findagent_create_draft. It also names findagent_import_repo as the correct alternative for repo pulling, giving both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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