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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, openWorld=true, destructive=false) by defining the success contract ('saved:true and a reference'), disclaiming downstream meaning ('it is not selection or funding'), clarifying the file-handling boundary ('no files are uploaded through MCP; authorized material links are supported'), and specifying idempotent retry behavior. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before a one-way external write.

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?

Five tight sentences with the purpose and gating requirements front-loaded, followed by retry semantics and outcome disclaimers. No filler and no repetition of the tool name or title.

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?

Despite a deeply nested schema and no output schema, the description supplies the success signal, the failure/retry protocol, the consent and authorization gates, and the file-handling constraint. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it ties confirmSubmission to founder approval of 'these exact details/materials', reinforces founder_authorized:true and consent as hard gates, and explains that materials must be links rather than uploads. It does not explain the nested source/context fields, which the schema already covers.

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 ('Send an actual founder-approved startup submission to Creditable's private review queue') and the word 'actual' implicitly contrasts with the sibling validate_submission, which only checks a submission. An agent can distinguish this from read_program and validate_submission 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 clear preconditions for use: explicit confirmation, founder_authorized:true, and review/contact consent, plus a retry rule ('reuse the exact UUID and body after a timeout'). It stops short of explicitly naming validate_submission as the preceding step or read_program as an unrelated alternative, so routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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