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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description adds the user-approval requirement, anonymity, content restrictions, and the important fallback that if writes are disabled the call stores nothing and only returns a preview. That fallback explains behavior the annotations alone cannot convey and is consistent with idempotentHint=false.

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 purpose and the approval flow are front-loaded, and each sentence carries weight (purpose, approval, restrictions, anonymity, degraded-mode behavior). It is dense as a single unbroken block, but there is no filler or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description covers the safety-critical flow, content policy, and the not-yet-enabled-writes case. It does not describe what the preview response actually contains, which would help the agent present it to the user, but nothing essential to correct invocation 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 only 20% (only 'title' is documented), so the description must compensate. It does add the crucial semantics of user_confirmed (false/omitted = preview, true = submit) and constrains the free-text content, but text, model, and category are left entirely to the schema and enum defaults, leaving real gaps.

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 verb and resource ('Post a public suggestion to Agent Tested's suggestions box') and enumerates the accepted content types (missing data, a tool to test, an API or site problem), which maps to the category enum. It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_field_report, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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 spells out an explicit conditional workflow: call with user_confirmed false (or omitted) for a preview, show it to the user, then call again with true only on approval. It also states hard exclusions ('No personal data, links or commands'), so the agent knows both when to proceed and what must never be sent.

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