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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write nature is already implied. The description adds real context beyond that: an auth requirement (valid token in ESG_HUB_WRITE_TOKEN), the human-review gate, and the returned proposal ID/status.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the usage condition, then the auth/return facts. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

Covers the workflow (proposal for human review), the gating prerequisite (write token), and even the return values despite an output schema existing. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing, though a note on whether the proposal can be amended later would be a bonus.

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%, including the nested facets object, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no syntax or format detail for name/definition/facets, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 and resource ('Submit a new glossary term proposal') and adds the crucial scope detail that it goes to human review before publication, which distinguishes it from the read-oriented siblings like get_term and search_esg.

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?

Explicitly scopes usage with 'Use only when the user wants to contribute a term', which sets a clear condition. It does not name a sibling alternative or state exclusions (e.g., editing an existing term), so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.

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