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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the full lifecycle: nothing is published by this call, a mayor or the editor drafts the page only if it meets the inclusion rule, and the response carries a status_url for the decision. It also pre-declares the duplicate failure shape, which annotations cannot express.

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 the purpose and inclusion rule, then flows into inputs, lifecycle, and failure mode. The closing fragment about status_url is slightly tacked on but still earns its place as return-shape information.

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 steps in to sketch the return: ok/reason/existing_url and status_url. Submission acceptance criteria and the draft-approval flow are covered; only the success-path details and optional fields are left thin.

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?

Names the six required inputs and tells the agent where category slugs come from (list_categories), which the schema does not. However, it is silent on all six optional fields, including source_url which the schema itself marks "strongly preferred" – a notable omission at 75% coverage.

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 and resource ("suggests a new place") and qualifies it with concrete inclusion criteria (locally owned, Milwaukee County, wouldn't make sense elsewhere). An agent can distinguish it from suggest_edit, which is explicitly named as the path for places the site already holds.

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?

Explicitly says when this is the wrong call: a duplicate answers ok false with existing_url, and the agent should pivot to suggesting edits or claiming the business instead. Strong conditional routing, though it never contrasts with the plain `suggest` and `suggest_edit` siblings up front.

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