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

The description explicitly states the side effect: 'writes one community record outside the KG'. It also clarifies what the tool does not do ('does not search or call an LLM') and explains testMode's effect on the public feed. This meaningfully extends the annotations, which only indicate readOnlyHint=false.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the key write behavior and the testMode exception. Each sentence adds useful context, though the testMode sentence partially duplicates the schema description.

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 tool with ten parameters and a write side effect, the description covers the essential context: when to use it, what it writes, where it writes, and how to avoid affecting the public feed. An output schema is listed as present, which reduces the need to describe return values.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description highlights testMode's diagnostic behavior, but the schema already covers it thoroughly. No additional parameter meaning is added beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb ('Submit'), the resource ('a concrete observation'), and the context ('after completing a verification task'). It also distinguishes the tool from search/LLM operations, though it does not explicitly contrast it with the sibling submit_agent_feedback.

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 gives a clear trigger ('after completing a verification task') and useful diagnostic guidance for testMode, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over submit_agent_feedback or other siblings. Usage is implied rather than fully specified with exclusions.

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