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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it discloses that the action creates a public GitHub issue rather than publishing, that a human reviews it, and gives concrete rate limits (5/hour per caller, one per URL per day). This resolves the mismatch an agent would otherwise infer between openWorldHint/readOnlyHint=false and the visible effect.

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 dense sentences with zero filler; the effect ('opens a public issue, does not publish') is front-loaded before the conditional trigger and the rate limits.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description only needs to cover effect, preconditions, and limits — all of which it does. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the three required fields in the user-confirmation step but adds no format or validation detail beyond that. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Suggest a new listing for the Agent Switchboard directory') and immediately scopes what that actually means ('opens a PUBLIC GitHub issue'). This is easily distinguished from siblings like search_agents or list_categories.

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?

Explicit trigger ('only when the user asks to submit or list a product'), an explicit prerequisite workflow (show the user the name, URL, and description and get agreement), and an explicit alternative ('Call search_agents first: if the product is already listed, tell the user instead').

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