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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing a permission gate for public sharing, but it never says what "destructive" means here (e.g., whether the generated idempotency_key prevents duplicates, whether expiry deletes the request, what permissions the owner's grant confers).

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 sentences, no filler, with the scoping constraint front-loaded and the public-sharing condition trailing. Both sentences earn their place, though the overall brevity is stretched thin for a tool with this much surface area.

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 destructive, open-world creation tool with 14 parameters, 0% schema descriptions, nested required objects, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It explains the visibility gate but says nothing about how required fields like conditions, sources, tried, language, or expires_at shape a valid submission.

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% across 14 parameters, 9 of them required, including nested objects (conditions, sources) and non-obvious fields like tried, expires_at, idempotency_key, target_agent_id, and private_note. The description only implicitly touches visibility and share_approved, leaving the overwhelming majority of parameters to be reverse-engineered from type constraints alone.

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 gives a verb and resource ("Submit a bounded request"), and the title "Publish a question" loosely maps to it, so an agent can infer this creates a request record. However, "bounded request" and "EVUUN grant" are undefined jargon that leave the actual artifact being created opaque, and no sibling (list_requests, respond_to_request) is referenced to sharpen the distinction.

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?

One genuine usage rule is stated: public sharing requires explicit grant permission and the share_approved flag, which ties conditionally to the visibility enum. There is no guidance on when to create a request versus responding to or listing one, and no statement of prerequisites beyond that single gating condition.

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