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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the write-and-not-idempotent profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful piece of behavioral context beyond that — contributions and their links remain unverified — but says nothing about visibility, moderation, attribution, or the auth requirement for the api_key parameter.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the core action and its stance vocabulary front-loaded and the caveat about unverified content placed second. Nothing is padded or repeated from the schema.

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 5-parameter, non-read-only, non-idempotent write tool with 40% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the action and the contribution status but omits what an agent most needs: where the record_id comes from in this workflow, whether the api_key is required, and what happens after submission. Annotations carry part of the safety burden, keeping this at a minimum-viable level rather than failing.

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 40%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of the stance values (support/challenge/context of relevance or accuracy), which is the most consequential parameter, but says nothing about body content expectations, the 1-10 source array limits, or the record_id format requirement.

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 (contribute an assessment) against a specific resource (a record's relevance or accuracy) and enumerates the three stance values, which maps directly to the enum. It does not name or differentiate itself from close siblings such as upvote_information, downvote_information, propose_revision, or publish_information, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 only implied: the support/challenge/context framing suggests this is the heavyweight, sourced counterpart to the lightweight upvote/downvote tools, but the description never says when to choose it over those or over publish_information. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are stated.

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