I'm not a reviewer, so all I can do is guess. I don't have access to that holiest of holys, The Secret Book of Reviewer Stuff. The fact that caches have been published with no description would certainly indicate that the procedure is not a violation of either the written or the unpublished guidelines. The most I could even possibly conceive of, (and it's an admitted stretch), is a reviewer might send a note to a noob, asking if it was their intention to create a cache with no description. Maybe?
Sorry to bring this up to the top but this post helps me convey my thought on the subject. All who have posted caches know all the extras that can be put down that don't get published with the cache that the reviewer sees. Whose to say, without seeing what the CO wrote, that the description to the reviewer wasn't three pages long and that what was actually published is the way the cache was intended to be published? And to yet again bring up the "original" geocache. That was just coordinates on a bulletin board much like this one. It said here it is, go find it. It's pretty much the same as this published page.
Tim