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

Annotations declare this is not read-only and not open-world. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: submissions are queued, free, human-reviewed by Tack before appearing, and restricted from links, phones, ratings, or reviews. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but the moderation and queue behavior are well disclosed.

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 front-loaded with the core action and purpose, followed by useful constraints. Every sentence earns its place: the URL, free status, moderation note, and content exclusions all add relevant context without 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?

For a write/queue tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers submission behavior, moderation, cost, and content restrictions. It could mention the optional color parameter or what happens after review, but it is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the four required inputs and the 8-word note limit, but it omits the optional 'color' parameter and largely repeats what the schema already documents.

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 and resource: 'Queues a favorite small shop for Brass Street', and names the required inputs. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as pin_tack or request_redesign.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Queues a favorite small shop for Brass Street' and the content exclusions, so an agent can infer this is for adding shops. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives among the sibling tools.

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