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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuinely useful state transition—the proposal 'Enters admin review queue'—telling the agent the submission is not immediately live. However, it says nothing about required permissions, whether the submission is editable or withdrawable while pending, or what happens on validation failure.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the resulting state. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 mutation tool with 6 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It should at minimum explain the template dependency, the units/expectations for cutoff_ms and deadline_ms, and what the caller receives back after entering the review queue.

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% across 7 parameters, and the description names none of them. The schema itself constrains rules (minLength 20), title (5-200 chars), and sources (https URLs), but cutoff_ms and deadline_ms semantics—clearly epoch-millisecond timestamps—are left entirely unexplained, and the optional question parameter is undocumented.

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: 'Submit a new market proposal from a template.' An agent can distinguish this from read-only siblings like composer_template_get and composer_templates_list, which fetch rather than submit. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the related sibling composer_template_get, which an agent would plausibly need first to obtain a template_id. 'From a template' implies a dependency but never states the workflow.

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