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

The annotations already establish that this is a non-destructive write with idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful process detail: suggestions are checked automatically and reviewed before being listed, and the business must not already be listed. It does not cover rate limits, auth, or duplicate handling beyond the idempotency hint.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the eligibility and review process. Every sentence adds useful information without 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?

For a suggestion tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what to submit, what evidence is required, and that the suggestion is reviewed rather than immediately published. It could say more about expected confirmation or invalid/duplicate submissions, but it is sufficient for correct 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 67%, and the description adds an important cross-field requirement not encoded in the required list: the business must have its own website, a Facebook/Instagram page, or a phone number. That clarifies how the optional contact fields should be populated, though name, town, trade, and reason are left to the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Suggest an independent business that Independents Only doesn't list yet.' The 'doesn't list yet' scope also distinguishes it from search/list siblings, and the example clarifies when an agent would have such a candidate.

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?

It gives clear usage context by saying 'for example one you found while answering' and states the minimum evidence needed: own website, Facebook/Instagram page, or phone number. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as search or independence-checking tools, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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