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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds substantially more: nothing publishes immediately, a pending proposal is created, a proposal_id is returned, a reviewer gates publication, a write token in ESG_HUB_WRITE_TOKEN is required and a missing/invalid token yields 401, and calls are rate-limited.

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?

Front-loaded with the essential outcome (pending proposal, no immediate publish) and then routing, params, and auth. Dense but every clause carries information; slightly long with several semicolon-joined clauses, though nothing is wasted.

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 mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers outcome semantics (pending vs. live), the returned proposal_id, auth requirements, and rate limits. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to explain the result to a user.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that name is the display name, that definition must be at least 10 characters, and that facets values should be drawn from the get_esg_metadata / list_industries vocabularies. That vocabulary-source guidance is genuinely new information not present in the schema.

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 (submit for review) and resource (glossary term), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the read path by noting that only approved terms later appear in get_term. An agent can separate this from list_terms/get_term without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('only when the user explicitly wants to contribute a term') and names the alternative ('to look one up use get_term'). The when-not is stated, not inferred.

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