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

Annotations declare a non-destructive write, and the description adds context beyond them: the post is made publicly 'as the user' in the community forum, other users vote on it, and staff can see an AI app filed it (an attribution disclosure). It stops short of covering moderation, rate limits, or editability, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the routing rule; no filler. The middle clause ('as the user, in the community forum, where others vote on it') is dense and slightly run-on, but every element carries 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 only two required parameters, full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations present, the description covers the essential unknowns: visibility, authorship, and the duplicate-check path. The only minor gap is what happens after submission (success shape), which the output schema already addresses.

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 meaning of 'title' (the idea in a few words) and 'body' (why, in Markdown) is already carried by the schema. The description adds no additional guidance on content, tone, or length constraints, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Suggests a feature idea for OohWeGo ... in the community forum') and implicitly separates itself from siblings like report_bug and vote_community_post by stating this creates a new votable forum idea. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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 an explicit routing rule: 'Search the community first: an idea already there is voted for instead,' which names the sibling action (search_community, then vote_community_post) and the condition that selects it. This is real when-to-use guidance rather than implied context.

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