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

Annotations mark this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world=false write, and the description usefully adds that suggestions are 'researched and reviewed before adding them' – disclosing that submission has no immediate effect. It does not explain dedup failure behavior or what the call returns, but combined with the annotations the picture is clear enough.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, review process, dedup precheck, and docs link. The key routing instruction is front-loaded after the purpose statement with no filler.

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 no output schema and only 75% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, the human review step, and the dedup requirement, which is sufficient to invoke it correctly. It could say more about what happens on a duplicate or invalid region slug, but nothing essential 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 coverage is 75% and the description adds almost no per-parameter meaning, only implying the New Zealand regional scope. The schema already documents url, notes, and region, so the baseline 3 applies rather than a penalty or credit.

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?

States a specific verb ('suggest'), resource ('New Zealand grant funder'), and a scope constraint ('not in the database'), which cleanly separates it from the read-oriented siblings like search_funders and get_funder. An agent can tell what creates data versus what reads it without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to 'Check search_funders first to avoid duplicates,' naming a concrete sibling and the condition that selects it. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or a statement of what happens after submission, so it falls short of a full 5.

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