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

Adds two things the annotations cannot express: a hard auth requirement (agent key via 'Authorization: Bearer <key>') and the key behavioral fact that submissions go to quarantine for review rather than straight into the record, which explains why destructiveHint=false despite a write. That deferred-visibility disclosure materially changes how an agent interprets the result.

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 tight sentences, with the action and auth prerequisite front-loaded. The final clause is telegraphic ('mechanism not motive') but every phrase carries content; no filler.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the auth path, the quarantine outcome, and evidence-quality rules. It stops short of saying what a successful call returns (a submission ID?) or how to track the review, which is the remaining gap given 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 already 83%, but the description supplies meaning for the undocumented lurking_variables parameter ('lurking variables named') and constrains content of claim/method_note ('mechanism not motive', 'primary sources by address'), going beyond the schema's terse field labels.

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 evidence for a hole or claim. Clearly distinguishable from read-side siblings like parse_open_holes and parse_read_record, though it does not name the closest alternative (e.g., where a submission later shows up) explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'for a hole or claim' and it points to parse_method for how to assemble evidence, but it never says when not to use it or which sibling to consult afterwards (parse_my_submissions), leaving the routing to inference.

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