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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It adds the useful fact that 'Cost = 0 tokens' and implies the tool is a submission mechanism, but it does not describe what happens after the request (e.g., confirmation, asynchronous handling, or response format). This is adequate but not thorough.

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?

The description is appropriately concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a clear usage condition, what to include, and cost. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple request tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, when to use, what to provide, and cost. The only minor gap is the lack of detail about post-submission behavior, but the output schema presumably covers the return value, so this is not a significant omission.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters already have clear descriptions. The tool description adds some guidance on what to include in the text fields ('Describe what you need, why you cannot accomplish it today, and how you would use it'), but this mostly paraphrases the schema. It does not meaningfully enhance parameter understanding beyond 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Request a new capability or feature that Vee3 does not offer yet.' It uses a specific verb ('request') and resource ('new capability or feature'), and further clarifies scope by mentioning 'missing integration, data source, workflow, or enhancement.' This distinguishes it from sibling meta-tools like report_bug and search.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when you need something that is not available in the catalog' and lists example use cases. It also tells the user what to include in the request. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternative tools (e.g., 'if the capability exists, use it directly'), so it stops short of a 5.

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