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

Annotations mark this as a non-destructive, non-idempotent write in a closed world; the description adds the important behavioral fact that submissions go to a human review queue and may be published on the guide. It also adds a safety constraint (no secrets, credentials, or private data) that annotations cannot express. It leaves rate limits and duplicate-handling unstated.

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 tight sentences: purpose and outcome first, safety constraint last. Nothing redundant and 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 two-parameter, non-destructive write with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers intent, downstream handling, and a data-safety rule. Only the immediate response (confirmation vs. queued state) is unaddressed, which is minor.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description earns extra: 'a listed board' clarifies that the slug must point to an existing directory entry, and the examples give concrete content guidance for the note field beyond its maxLength constraint.

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 concrete verb and resource ('share something you learned while using a listed board') and names the outcome (human review, possible publication on that guide). It is clearly distinguishable from reporting a problem or suggesting a site, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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 parenthetical examples ('a trap, a changed limit, a faster way') imply the kind of observation this tool is for, and 'listed board' implies the slug must reference an existing listed entry. But there is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing against close siblings like report_experience or report_problem.

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