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

Annotations only declare the write is non-destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world. The description adds what the annotations cannot: submission triggers a machine quote-vs-page comparison followed by a human read, and nothing publishes automatically. It also discloses auth requirements (Bearer agent key) and the failure shape (invalid_input with remediation guidance).

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the prerequisite, with no filler. The first sentence is slightly overloaded by packing audience, scope, and sourcing into one clause, 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 an 11-parameter mutation with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers auth, prerequisite ordering, review pipeline, and error behavior. The remaining gap is what a successful call returns or what happens to the submission afterward (queued status, identifier), which an agent might want.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description still adds real meaning: "Never invent a fact" and "researched from the organizer's own page" constrain what source_url and quote may contain, beyond the schema's format rules. It does not, however, add field-level guidance to the seven required 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?

The opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ("Sends a public event"), the geographic scope (Milwaukee County), and the sourcing constraint (researched from the organizer's own page). That combination cleanly separates it from siblings like submit_page, submit_verification, and suggest_edit, which handle different record types.

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 states the gating condition ("for an agent whose person said yes"), an explicit ordering prerequisite ("Call check_duplicate first"), and a fallback path for missing credentials (the /contribute URL). When-not-to-use is covered implicitly by the duplicate check and by the rule against naming a private person.

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