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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, which say only what this is not), the description discloses genuinely useful behavioral traits: 'FREE, no account' signals no authentication prerequisite, 'a person reads the queue' tells the agent the submission is human-reviewed rather than immediately fulfilled, and 'One required field' sets low-friction expectations. This adds real context the annotations alone do not provide.

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 key facts are front-loaded ('FREE, no account — tell the catalog what you looked for and could not find'), and the description is compact. However, the internal 'roadmap#166' reference and the slightly cryptic 'consumer door' phrasing add jargon without agent-usable meaning, so not every clause 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 submission tool with one required field, high schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: cost, auth, submission content, required fields, and human processing. It does not describe what the user receives back after submitting, which matters in the absence of an output schema, so a small but real gap remains.

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?

With 83% schema description coverage, the schema already documents five of six parameters, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only 'One required field,' which merely restates what the schema's required array already encodes. The context parameter's nuanced semantics ('never included in the answer and never used to rank') are already well-covered in the schema itself.

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 names a specific verb-resource pair ('tell the catalog what you looked for and could not find') and frames the tool as 'the consumer door' for gap reporting, which distinguishes it from the analysis-oriented siblings like gap_analysis, company_gaps, and industry_gap_analysis. The purpose could be even crisper if it explicitly named those alternatives, but the task is unmistakable.

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 phrase 'the consumer door (roadmap#166): a gap report is how the catalog learns what to add next' implies this is the submission path for end users reporting missing catalog content, contrasted implicitly with the analysis/reporting siblings. However, it never explicitly states when NOT to use it or names an alternative tool for analyzing existing gaps (e.g., gap_analysis), leaving the routing decision to inference.

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