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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive write. The description adds genuinely useful context that contributions (links and claims) remain unverified, which the annotations do not convey. It omits permissions/auth expectations and any rate or moderation behavior, so it goes beyond annotations but not far.

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?

A single compact sentence with the action front-loaded and no wasted words. It could arguably fit one more clause about alternatives without bloat, but it is efficiently structured.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers the semantic core but leaves meaningful gaps: no return/confirmation behavior, no note about contribution limits, and no relation to the surrounding discussion/voting siblings. Adequate but not complete.

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 only 40%, so the description should compensate more than it does. It usefully encodes the stance enum values and the notion that a source is required ('sourced'), but says nothing about body length limits, the 10-source cap, or the record_id format already documented in the schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Contribute') and resource (a sourced assessment of a record's relevance or accuracy), plus the three stance values. It distinguishes the tool from the vote-oriented siblings by emphasizing sourced, written assessment, though it never names those siblings 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: use this when you want to add a sourced support/challenge/context assessment. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over upvote_information, downvote_information, or propose_revision, nor any stated prerequisites.

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