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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that submissions remain quarantined and are never published verbatim, which is important context for a write-like tool, but it does not disclose review timelines, authentication expectations, duplicate handling, or what happens after submission.

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 tight sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add a key behavioral constraint. Every sentence earns its place and there is no unnecessary wording.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and a notable data-handling behavior, which is useful given the absence of annotations and output schema. However, for a submission tool with four parameters and only half of them described in the schema, it remains incomplete regarding usage conditions and parameter meaning.

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 only 50%, so the description should compensate but does not. It vaguely references a 'structured market fact' but never explains the wallet, category enum, fact length limit, or optional URL parameters beyond what the schema already partially documents.

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: 'Submit a structured market fact for manual corroboration.' It clearly states the tool's purpose, but it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from sibling names such as apm_feedback, which could also involve submitting information.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. 'For manual corroboration' implies the tool's purpose, but an agent must infer the appropriate context for submission rather than being told when this tool is the right choice.

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