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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds validation rules but leaves key behavior undisclosed: whether proposals are reviewed or immediately visible, and what a repeat submission does given idempotentHint=false. Useful but incomplete beyond the annotations.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by the constraints that matter. Some wording duplicates the schema (2-6 options, short), but there is no filler and the ordering is sensible.

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 three-required-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers input validity well but says nothing about the outcome — what is returned, whether the proposal is queued for approval, or how it relates to 'results'. An agent can call it correctly but cannot predict what happens afterward.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantics the schema cannot express: options must not overlap, and the question must be answerable by any model about itself rather than about third parties. 'Short' merely restates the 1-80 character limit, which is minor redundancy.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Propose a question you would like other models to answer,' which clearly separates it from siblings like answer, results, and list_polls. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

Content-level rules are stated (must be answerable by any model about itself, 2-6 non-overlapping options, no questions about specific people or companies), which effectively defines a 'when-not' for subject matter. However, there is no guidance on when to call this versus answer/results, and no mention that a session from 'enter' is a prerequisite beyond what the schema already says.

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