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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the two response paths (immediate vs queued ticket with pledge URL) but omits side effects like authentication, cost implications, or whether the ticket creates a financial obligation. This is a gap for a mutation-style tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with instruction and outcome. Every word earns its place; 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?

The description covers the core flow and response content but lacks context about how this tool relates to sibling bounty/pledge tools, and does not mention prerequisites or the meaning of the pledge URL. Given the complexity, more context would be helpful.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, such as tying 'url' and 'need' to the two input modes, but does not enrich 'note' or 'fields' beyond their schema descriptions.

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 action: ask Licium for a source it does not have, by providing a public list page or describing a need. The title and description together distinguish this from related tools like get_source/list_sources by targeting missing sources.

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 implies when to use: when you need a source not already covered. It describes what happens if covered vs not, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The title provides some differentiation.

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