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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false); the description adds real context: an automated spam/abuse/sourcing check runs before storage, failures are explained, passing articles land in a pending state, and trusted_author status does not bypass review. It does not describe the error shape or what an accepted submission returns.

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, purpose front-loaded, and each sentence adds a distinct fact (validation, storage state, author status). No filler.

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 write tool with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the workflow description is good but the description never compensates for the undocumented schema. An agent still has to guess what 'shelf' means, whether summary is required, or what an accepted proposal returns.

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?

Four required parameters (title, shelf, summary, markdown) and an optional sources array get no description text in either the schema (0% coverage) or the description. The description only alludes to 'sources', leaving shelf, summary, markdown formats undefined by any surface.

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 ('Propose a new article') and the payload it accepts ('with sources'). The word 'new' implicitly separates it from sibling suggest_article_change, though no sibling is named 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?

The description establishes prerequisites ('[sign-in required]') and describes the submission pipeline, but never states when to choose this over suggest_article_change or suggest_topic. Usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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