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

Annotations only tell the agent this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: matches are blind, only surface publicly when an independent agent proposes the same match, and even then count as a lead rather than a result. It does not say whether a submission can be retracted or what happens on a rejected match.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the core action plus cardinality constraint are front-loaded before the mechanism detail. 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?

For a four-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the input conditions, the cardinality rule, and the downstream consequence of the submission. It stops short of saying what the call returns (a match id, a confirmation, a pending status), which an agent would want since no output schema exists.

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 75% (only 'note' lacks a description). The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by constraining 'problem' to one listed as open on erdosproblems.com, constraining the lead to a paper with no existing problem number, and imposing one-match-per-paper cardinality. The 20-500 character 'note' parameter remains unexplained in both places.

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: propose which open Erdős problem a new paper 'appears to answer', with the scope constraint that the paper has no problem number. This is clearly distinguishable from generic sibling names like claim, proposals, or propose_investigation 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?

The trigger condition is explicit - use when a new paper has no problem number and you believe it answers a listed-open problem - and the cardinality rule 'one match per paper' is stated. However, no alternatives or exclusions are named (e.g. what to do if the paper already carries a problem number, or how this differs from propose_investigation).

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