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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses that submissions are public, that they are never auto-published but go to human editorial review, and that there is per-sender rate limiting. Not disclosed are auth requirements, what the call returns, or whether duplicate tips are accepted — gaps, but the moderation and rate-limit traits are exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the four tip categories. Every clause carries information: what to send, when it applies, and the two operational facts (public, editor-reviewed, rate limited). 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?

For a 7-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the lifecycle an agent most needs (public, queued for review, rate limited) and the schema fully documents all parameters. The notable remaining gap is that the agent cannot tell what a successful call yields — a tip id, a confirmation, or nothing — nor whether authentication is required.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns more by glossing the enum domain in prose ('a place to add' → add, 'a closed place' → closed, 'somewhere nearly impossible to book' → hard_to_book, 'a wrong fact' → wrong_info), making the kind choice clear without opening the schema. It adds nothing about city/persona/step_ref/locale, which 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?

States a specific verb (send) and resource (a tip about a city) and then enumerates the four substantive tip kinds, which map directly onto the 'kind' enum values. An agent can distinguish this write/submission tool from every sibling, all of which are read-only lookups (get_city, list_*, estimate_*).

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?

"a place to add, a closed place, somewhere nearly impossible to book, or a wrong fact" gives concrete situations that select this tool, and "never published; an editor reviews it first" frames it as a submission rather than a data edit. It stops short of explicit exclusions or prerequisites (e.g. don't submit what already exists in get_city output), and no sibling overlaps so no alternative needs naming.

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