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

With no annotations to fall back on, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It explicitly discloses that submissions queue for admin review, only propagate after merge, and do NOT immediately mutate the catalog. It also states the return value: a correction ID plus reassurance that the submission is queued.

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 description is front-loaded with the action, supported by clear use cases, and includes necessary lifecycle and return-value details. The phrase 'Two-way data flow that helps keep the catalog accurate' is a filler value statement rather than operational guidance, but it does not hurt clarity.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by stating what is returned (correction ID + queued reassurance). It covers the async admin-review lifecycle, enumerates accepted fields, and all six parameters are fully documented in the schema. An agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, and all six parameters are already well explained in the schema. The tool description mostly enumerates the field values that the schema enum already provides, so it adds little semantic value beyond the structured parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Submit a correction to the StackSwap catalog,' and enumerates the targeted aspects (pricing, feature list, gotcha, AI-readiness score, category, or other). It also covers the edge case of reporting a tool not yet in the catalog, which distinguishes it from the search/compare/generate siblings.

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 usage scenarios: stale price, inaccurate feature list, gotcha to flag, or reporting an uncovered tool. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of a 5, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route the call correctly.

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