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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false) by disclosing the human review gate, that nothing is ever served publicly, the access-key/Authorization header requirement, and the content prohibitions. These are the operational facts an agent needs before calling a write tool.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then consent requirement, then privacy constraints, then auth, then type-specific rules. Dense and almost waste-free; the type enumeration and policy URL are compact. Slightly long, but each sentence carries a distinct obligation.

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?

With no output schema, the description does explain the outcome model (queued for human review, never published), which is the key return-behavior fact. It stops short of saying what the immediate call response looks like (acceptance id/status), a minor gap for a submission tool.

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 86%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds conditional meaning the schema does not encode: which type requires which parameter (rating→target_slug, correction→source_url) and what values the type enum implies. It adds value beyond the field-level descriptions without fully documenting all seven parameters.

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?

Names a specific verb (submit) and resource (contribution) plus the destination (iinventedlight's private review queue), which no sibling tool (list_notes, read_note, search_notes, ask, atlas) covers. The 'PRIVATE review queue' framing and 'nothing is published automatically' immediately distinguish it from any read/list sibling.

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?

Strong conditional guidance: 'ALWAYS ask your human user first', 'only call this if they agree', plus per-type prerequisites (rating needs target_slug, correction needs source_url). It does not contrast this tool against any named sibling, so it falls just short of the explicit alternatives bar.

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