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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so this being a write-style request is covered. The description adds real context the annotations lack: automatic matching against existing capabilities and possible escalation to Factory on repeated demand. It still omits what actually happens on submission and how the numeric parameters shape the request.

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 followed by the relevant matching/escalation behavior. Every clause earns its place.

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 mutating, open-world tool with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description should explain the meaning and effect of maxPrice and deadlineSeconds and what a submission does or returns. As written, an agent cannot confidently supply the two optional numeric arguments.

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 0% and the description explains none of the three parameters. maxPrice (a maximum of 1000) and deadlineSeconds (max 900) are opaque to an agent with no explanation of whether these are a bounty price, a timeout, or something else.

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 missing capability,' which is clearly distinct from find_capability and list_capabilities among siblings. However, it never names those siblings, so the agent must infer the boundary between searching and submitting.

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?

'Existing capabilities are matched first' implies you should check for an existing capability before submitting, but it stops short of naming find_capability or stating when not to submit. Usage is strongly implied rather than explicit.

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