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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job. It discloses atomic creation of operator+listing+price, the commission structure, DNS email verification, in_review moderation status, and that a preview_url is returned. This gives the agent a strong understanding of side effects and constraints before invoking.

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 compact yet information-dense. It front-loads the core action, then efficiently covers business terms, prerequisites, moderation state, and return value in a few sentences. Every sentence adds value and no content is redundant with the schema.

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 complex mutation tool with 13 parametersaging 54% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the important operational context: what is created, in what state, what is required, what is returned, and where to get further schema guidance. It directs the agent to get_submission_schema and list_categories, filling any remaining gaps.

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 54%, so the description must add meaning beyond the schema. It does: email is explained as a real, DNS-verified business email; price is contextualized as the experience price; category is linked to list_categories; and the 'one call' behavior clarifies how multiple parameters relate. A few parameters are still left to the schema, but the description compensates well.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pairing: 'Add a supplier/operator and one of their experiences or services (with price) to 1001locals' and further clarifies that 'One call creates the operator, the listing and its price.' This clearly distinguishes submit_experience from the sibling get/list/search tools, which are read-oriented.

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 clear contextual guidance: it is for creating a new operator and listing, no account is needed, a valid business email is required, and it explicitly instructs to call get_submission_schema and list_categories first. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can route correctly.

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