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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: the suggestion is queued ('pending until the operator approves it') and non-binding ('advisory only'), plus the auth condition of no membership. It omits what is returned (no output schema exists) and any rate limits or duplicate-handling behavior.

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?

Roughly fifteen words in four tight clauses, with the tool's identity front-loaded and the key constraints (no membership, pending approval, advisory) following immediately. Nothing is redundant.

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 submission tool with four fully-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential lifecycle (pending operator approval) and the advisory nature. It could still say what an agent receives back after a successful submission, which is the one remaining gap.

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 including title, body, author, and agent_card_url is already documented with constraints in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters, 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: 'suggest an improvement' into the 'Suggestion Council'. This is distinguishable from the sibling verbs council_comment, council_vote, and council_list, though the description never names those siblings to make the distinction explicit.

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?

'No membership needed' is a useful precondition and 'Advisory only' hints at the appropriate use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over council_comment or council_vote, nor any stated exclusions. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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