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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the post-submission lifecycle: a human reviews every notice, an immediate confirmation of receipt is emailed, and the decision follows later. Combined with the auth model (public, no key, rate-limited) and the required good-faith attestation, an agent has a clear picture of consequences that annotations alone do not convey.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the parameter contract, then the workflow and the sibling alternative — a sensible order with no filler. The middle parameter enumeration is dense, but every clause maps to a real requirement.

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?

With 10 parameters, no output schema, and a legal-submission workflow, the description supplies the field contract, the reviewer/confirmation flow, and the alternative tool. The only gap is that the anti-spam and locale fields are left to the schema, which is reasonable for a description of this length.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantics: it states the conditional relationship ('product_slug when it is on a product page'), the 20–4000 character explanation bound, and the meaning of good_faith as an attestation. It does not cover the website-only fields (locale, ip_hash, website), which is acceptable since the site computes them.

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?

Names the specific legal instrument and action: a DSA Article 16 notice that content on fordeal.ai is illegal, enumerating the covered content kinds (review, product info, offer, image, other). It is clearly distinguishable from report_issue, which is named for the adjacent but different case of wrong price/variant.

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?

Explicitly routes the wrong-case to a named sibling: 'For a wrong price or variant use report_issue instead.' It also states the access conditions (public, no key, anonymous rate limit applies), so an agent knows both when to pick this tool and what to expect operationally.

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