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

The description adds substantial context beyond annotations: submissions are filed externally, the text leaves the workspace, Maplith tries to mask leaked data, and a follow-up URL or reference is returned. It also discloses a per-workspace daily rate limit. These details matter for a write/submission tool with openWorldHint=true.

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 definition is dense but front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and then covering kind, privacy, and rate limits. Every clause carries operational meaning, though the semicolon-heavy style makes some sentences harder to scan than necessary.

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 8-parameter submission tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what gets filed, what data must not be included, where the text goes, what reference or follow-up URL is returned, and the rate limit. An agent has enough to call it correctly and safely.

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 schema already documents each parameter. The description adds cross-field guidance, especially that bug reports should bundle tool, problem, expected, and got, and it reinforces the capability-only constraint across all inputs. It stops short of adding syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 description states a specific action: tell Maplith what its own MCP server lacks or gets wrong. It immediately distinguishes this from reporting a data problem by saying such a problem is a finding, not a suggestion. An agent can tell this apart from sibling tools like list_findings or answer_question.

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 routes the agent by kind: improvement for missing capability, bug for a failed or wrong Maplith tool. It also gives a clear exclusion: problems in the human's data belong in findings, not here. The default kind and the bug-specific required inputs are stated directly.

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