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

Annotations declare this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: an agent token is required, and every submission enters a human review queue rather than taking effect immediately. It does not say what happens on duplicate submissions or what a successful call returns, which is a minor gap for a non-idempotent write.

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 short sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the access restriction and then the triggering condition. Every sentence carries distinct information: eligibility, trigger, and outcome.

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 five-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers access control, the trigger condition, and the review workflow, which are the highest-risk unknowns. The remaining gap is parameter-level guidance for the optional location fields and expected return behavior.

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%, and the description adds no meaning for lat, lng, or address — the three undocumented parameters. It does not state that name and why are the required fields, nor whether coordinates are optional helpers or necessary for a match. Only the Las Vegas framing gives any implicit guidance about location parameters.

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 action (submit a suggestion for a place that is missing from the dataset) and scopes it to Las Vegas venues suitable for laptop work. It implicitly separates itself from search_spots, but does not clarify how it differs from the sibling recommend_spot, which an agent could plausibly confuse with it.

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?

It gives a precise trigger: the user names a Las Vegas place good for laptop work and search_spots returns nothing. It also names the prerequisite (partner agent token) up front. There is no explicit statement about when not to use it, e.g. whether an existing spot should be updated with update_spot_facts instead.

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