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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key post-condition: the submission is stored as pending, human-reviewed, and never auto-published. That is meaningful lifecycle context an agent cannot get elsewhere. It stops short of covering failure handling, duplicate rejection, or what identifier is returned.

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 action and immediately followed by the review/pending constraint. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers only the review lifecycle. It omits what the caller gets back (submission ID/status), field expectations for the five required parameters, and duplicate-handling behavior, leaving real gaps.

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 44%, so the description needs to compensate, but it says nothing about any of the 9 parameters. Undocumented fields such as name, one_liner, tags, category, and agent_name rely entirely on bare schema types; the description adds zero meaning beyond structure.

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: 'Suggest a product for the directory.' That is clearly a write/submission action, which separates it from the read-oriented siblings (get_project, search_projects, list_categories). It does not explicitly name a sibling to disambiguate against, keeping it below a 5.

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 implies the use case (proposing a new product) but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings, no prerequisite such as checking for duplicates with search_projects first, and no exclusions. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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