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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool mutates data, requires authentication, or has any side effects. It only frames the action as 'telling' something, but does not describe what happens when the tool is called, the expected outcome, or any constraints. This is a significant gap for a tool that presumably creates a correction.

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 short (two sentences) but lacks technical structure. It includes conversational filler ('Every choice in it is a judgement and some are certainly mistaken') that does not aid an agent in understanding the tool. Essential information about parameters and behavior is omitted, so while concise in length, it is under-specified and not efficiently structured for machine parsing.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema coverage, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the required fields, the expected format of the correction, or what the tool returns. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly with the provided information. The description is a human-oriented appeal rather than a technical specification.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It fails to mention any of the three parameters (name, term, correction) or their meanings. The description only references 'glossary' but does not map to any parameter. An agent cannot infer what values to provide for these fields without additional context.

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: reporting errors in the glossary. The phrase 'Tell us where the glossary is wrong' is a specific verb-resource combination and conveys the intended action. However, it does not explicitly mention the act of submitting a correction or distinguish from other feedback tools, so it is clear but not fully formal.

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 implies this tool is for correcting glossary errors ('This is the only thing on this site we would actually like back'), but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus other tools, nor any exclusions or alternatives. It does not state whether this is the sole channel for corrections or if other tools exist for related purposes. The context is implied but not actionable.

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