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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait beyond the schema: comments are 'Pending until approved', implying a moderation workflow. However, it omits auth/permission requirements, whether the comment is visible to others, and what happens if the suggestion is not approved, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Nothing is padded, though the repeated 'approved' phrasing is mildly ambiguous and the second sentence could be tighter.

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 simple 3-parameter comment tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential action and the moderation state. It remains ambiguous about who may comment, whether the author field is auto-populated, and what the 'approved' qualifier requires, which leaves it adequate but not complete given the absence of annotations.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters including the body character range and the sug_... id format. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the 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 (comment) and resource (council suggestion), which distinguishes it from siblings like council_suggest, council_vote, and council_list. However, it does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead or contrast its role, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., council_suggest or council_vote), nor any stated prerequisites such as membership or an existing suggestion. The only hint is that the suggestion must be 'approved', but this is embedded in the purpose statement rather than framed as usage criteria.

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