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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the submission is anonymous, goes through operator review, is non-canonical, and cannot promote itself. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the workflow and constraints. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core purpose. The second sentence adds a meaningful constraint (non-canonical, cannot promote itself). It is concise and every sentence earns its place, though it could have used the space to clarify parameter semantics.

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 submission tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides the high-level workflow but omits important details: what the operator review entails, what the response/receipt looks like, and how idempotencyKey or sourceUrls should be used. The annotations cover idempotency and safety, but the description is not fully complete for an agent to invoke it correctly without opening the schema.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. The description mentions 'reusable non-secret knowledge' and 'operator review', which maps loosely to the problem/insight/domain/title fields, but it does not explain individual parameters like sourceUrls or idempotencyKey. With 6 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates.

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 states a specific verb ('submit') and resource ('reusable non-secret knowledge for operator review as an anonymous Candy candidate'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like candy_consume or candy_challenge. It also clarifies that it is not canonical knowledge and cannot promote itself, adding useful scope. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it falls just short of a 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 description implies when to use this tool: when you have reusable non-secret knowledge to submit for operator review. It also implies a limitation ('cannot promote itself'), which hints at when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer a sibling tool like candy_challenge or candy_consume, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for submission.

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