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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful traits: submission is free, it enters a review queue, and the endpoint gets actively probed — real behavioral context beyond the schema. It omits what happens if the probe fails, whether resubmission is allowed, and what identity/auth the caller needs, which matters for a mutation 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?

Two tight sentences with the cost signal front-loaded ('Free.') and no filler. The density costs some readability — 'T0' and 'the funnel' are undefined — but nothing is redundant.

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 6-parameter submission tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs to attempt the call: it's free, review-gated, requires an endpoint plus skills, and will be probed. Missing detail on contact/operator and post-submission outcome keeps it from a 5.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds one genuinely useful cross-field constraint not encoded in the schema (at least one of mcp_endpoint/a2a_endpoint), and mentions skills, but says nothing about name, contact, or operator, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 verb 'enters a candidate' plus 'after review' signals a submission-to-index operation, but the framing is jargon-heavy ('T0', 'the funnel') and never plainly says 'submits an agent to the index'. It also does not distinguish itself from near-neighbours like claim_agent or fast_track, which an agent could easily confuse with this.

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 gives a concrete prerequisite ('give at least one endpoint (MCP or A2A) and its skills') and rules out one misuse case ('not a ranking shortcut'). However, it names no alternatives and never says when to use claim_agent, fast_track, or check_agent_conformance instead, so the routing decision is left implicit.

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