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

Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the 500-signal threshold for build queue activation and the need for a contact channel for notifications. This gives users a clear sense of downstream effects.

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 description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and containing no filler. Each sentence adds necessary information: what the tool does and what the user must include.

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 and a relatively simple tool, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, activation threshold, and required input (contact channel). Combined with the annotations and full schema coverage, it provides a complete picture for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 all parameters. The description adds only emphasis on the contact channel ('Include a contact channel') but doesn't explain parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool registers demand for an unbuilt vertical, using a specific verb and resource. It also provides a unique trigger threshold (500 signals), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like join_waitlist and submit_pov.

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?

The description clearly implies the tool should be used when a vertical is not yet built ('unbuilt vertical') and provides a concrete activation rule (500 signals). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is clear.

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