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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently describes the workflow: files into a queue, humans review, accepted topics enter provisional lane and appear in signal feed. It also mentions 'Free' and the email purpose. Missing are details on rejection behavior, duplicates, or rate limits, but it covers the core process well.

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 two sentences, tightly worded, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every clause adds value: the net-new scope, the queue outcome, the provisioning lane, the email requirement, and the cost. No filler or redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description sufficiently explains the request lifecycle, including human review and acceptance outcomes. It is missing some edge-case behavior (e.g., duplicate handling, rejection response), but overall an agent can select and invoke this tool with confidence.

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 100% and each parameter has a clear description. The tool description adds slight semantic nuance (e.g., 'topic, entity, or standing question' for the 'topic' field) and explains why email is needed, but most meaning is already captured in the schema. 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb 'Propose' and a precise resource: 'NET-NEW coverage — a topic, entity, or standing question we don't track yet.' It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'net-new' and the queue/lane workflow, making its unique role obvious.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: when proposing something not yet tracked ('we don't track yet'). It also states a prerequisite ('Needs your human principal's contact email') and a cost signal ('Free'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, though the 'net-new' condition implicitly excludes existing coverage.

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