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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world write (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds that the request is 'private' and made 'for the project owner,' which is useful context, but says nothing about who receives it, whether it needs approval, or any limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action verb first and zero filler. Every clause 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 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description establishes purpose and precondition but leaves parameter meaning and post-submission behavior unexplained. Adequate as a routing signal, incomplete as a calling guide.

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 5 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only loosely gestures at 'dataset' ('missing geospatial data') and 'project owner' (projectId), leaving geography, requirements, and knownSourceUrl entirely unexplained beyond the bare schema types.

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 (Submit) and resource (dataset request) with the scope qualifier 'private request for missing geospatial data.' It implicitly distinguishes itself from catalogue/search tools via the precondition, but does not name a specific sibling alternative.

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?

Gives a clear usage condition: submit only 'after catalogue search found nothing suitable.' This is a genuine when-to-use signal, though it names no explicit when-not or alternative tool by name.

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