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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuine behavioral trait beyond structured fields - that suggestions and operator responses are public - which matters for an agent's privacy decisions. But it omits auth requirements, whether suggestions are signed vs anonymous, and whether they can be retracted.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the scope of the action front-loaded before the visibility note. Every sentence earns its place.

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 5-parameter write tool with 20% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It leaves unaddressed how author_type/author_handle work, whether submission requires signatory_key, and what happens after a suggestion is filed.

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 only 20% (only signatory_key is documented), so the description should compensate. It partially maps to the topic enum by naming accord/process/site/research but omits 'general', and says nothing about text length limits, author_type, author_handle, or how signatory_key enables attribution.

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 (suggest) and resource (a change to the Accord, process, site, or research), so the agent knows this is a proposal-submission tool. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling it differs from (edit_agreement's direct mutation, discuss_agreement's threaded discussion), so it falls short of 5.

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 verb 'suggest' implies this is for proposing changes rather than applying them directly (edit_agreement) or debating them (discuss_agreement), so usage is inferable. However, no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative is given, leaving the distinction to inference.

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