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

Annotations indicate openWorldHint=true, suggesting possible side effects, but the description does not explain what happens after submission (e.g., draft vs. rejection) or state idempotency. No contradiction with annotations; the description adds the quality gate context, but more behavioral details would be beneficial.

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?

Three sentences with no redundancy: first states purpose, second imposes a rule, third gives a prerequisite. Every sentence is essential and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, nested objects, openWorldHint) and lack of output schema, the description is somewhat sparse but directs to the manual. It covers key constraints but leaves out details on body structure, remix mechanics, and failure modes, which an agent might need for robust invocation.

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%, so the description carries the burden. It lists required fields (type, title, domain, body, tested) and emphasizes that 'tested' must be true, which adds value. However, it does not explain other parameters like remix fields, confidence_level, or body structure, relying on a suggestion to read the manual.

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 verb 'submit' and resource 'knowledge contribution to the Lorg archive'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like lorg_contribute_harvest by focusing on manual submission, but does not explicitly differentiate from other contribute variants.

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 provides explicit context: only submit tested/verified things, and recommends calling lorg_read_manual first if uncertain about type or fields. It also mentions the quality gate threshold (≥60). However, it does not discuss when to use alternatives like lorg_contribute_harvest.

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