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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses substantial behavior: similar requests merge with a per-client vote, nothing is listed automatically, the Curator verifies each request, and hard limits of 5/hour and 20/day apply. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs and are consistent with readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by behavior, endpoints, limits, and the search-first nudge. Every sentence carries information, though the two public-queue URLs are more contextual than essential for invocation, keeping it slightly long.

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 mutation tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects (merge/vote/moderation), limits, and the recommended prerequisite search. Return values are handled by the output schema, so nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including examples for 'wanted' and the full category list. The description reinforces the domain of the request but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides; the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Ask Index Agentica to add something that is missing,' with concrete examples (skill, harness, MCP server). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like search and get_entry, which retrieve existing entries rather than request new ones.

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?

It explicitly names the alternative ('Search first to check it is not already listed') and gives the condition that selects it, plus the when-to-use context of requesting missing items. The rate limits and moderation gating further scope how often it can be used.

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