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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false with destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write. The description adds useful downstream context that annotations cannot carry: the report feeds article expansion ('記事の加筆に使う'), and that it is not an error-report channel. It does not say what happens on repeated calls (idempotentHint=false suggests duplicates are possible) or what confirmation is returned, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, followed by the downstream purpose and the exclusion. No redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

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 three-parameter, fully documented write tool with no output schema, the description covers trigger, scope edge case, downstream use, and an exclusion. The only gap is what the caller gets back or whether repeated submissions create duplicate reports, which is a minor omission given the annotation set.

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 slug/missing/question are all documented in the schema, including the note that slug is omitted when no article exists. The description's '（該当記事が無い場合も含む）' reinforces the optional-slug case but adds no format or length guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific action (reporting that a point the user asked about was absent from a read article), and explicitly extends the scope to the case where no article exists at all. It also carves out a nearby-but-different case ('誤りの指摘には使わない'), so an agent can tell it apart from an error-reporting path and from the read-side siblings get_article/search_articles.

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?

It states the triggering condition precisely ('利用者に聞かれた点が書かれていなかったときに呼ぶ'), explicitly includes the no-matching-article case in parentheses, and states a negative condition (not for pointing out errors). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are present, leaving little to inference.

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