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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive write operation, and the description adds two traits they don't cover: the rate limit (1 per 7 days) and the required bearer token scope ('scope: post'). It does not say what happens if the limit is exceeded or whether a duplicate is rejected when `force` is false, so it stops short of full behavioral disclosure.

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?

Three short clauses, purpose front-loaded, followed by the routing rule and the auth caveat, with no redundant restatement of the name or schema. Every element earns its place.

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 write tool with full parameter coverage, non-destructive annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies the two non-obvious prerequisites an agent needs — auth scope and rate limit — plus the sibling routing. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents `body` (≤1000) and `force`. The description only implicitly touches `force` via the near-duplicate discussion and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('suggest a product improvement') and distinguishes itself from the closely-related siblings `ideas` and `support_idea` by naming the supporting-an-existing-idea path. An agent can tell it apart from the alternatives without opening their schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('Check `ideas` first'), an explicit tradeoff ('supporting an existing idea counts more than a near-duplicate'), and a hard frequency limit ('1 per 7 days'). This is the rare case where when-to-use, when-not-to, and the preferred alternative are all present.

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