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 the downstream effect ('helps decide what gets checked next'), which tells the agent the submission is advisory rather than immediate. However, it says nothing about persistence, review, deduplication, or whether the request returns anything.

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 compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the example placed inline where it clarifies the parameter. The phrasing 'a choice you needed facts for' is slightly roundabout but not wasteful.

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 low-risk, single-parameter submission tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it does, why it exists, and gives a usable example. The only real gap is what happens after submission, which is minor at this complexity.

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 0% for the single 'need' parameter, so the description must compensate. The example ('transactional email for a Python app') usefully illustrates the expected granularity and phrasing, but there is no statement about length, format, or whether multiple needs can be submitted at once.

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 action (telling Stackfacts about an uncovered choice) and names the resource type (a category/choice needing facts), with a concrete example. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_categories and compare, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'a choice you needed facts for that it does not cover yet' — i.e., use it when existing categories fall short — and the second sentence gives the downstream motivation. There is no explicit when-not guidance or reference to sibling tools.

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