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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world call. The description adds context annotations cannot: there is human review ('A person checks the site first') and a verification requirement ('A guest's email must confirm our link'). It stops short of describing turnaround, whether reports can be withdrawn, or what happens on duplicate submissions.

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 with the core action leading and prerequisites following; nothing is padded. The telegraphic fragments ('A person checks the site first', 'then correct it') trade clarity for brevity and require the reader to reconstruct the subject.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose, verification, and owner routing. However, the instruction 'Owners: atlas_owner_claim, then correct it' is ambiguous about whether an owner should also file a report, and the human-review workflow is asserted without saying what the caller should tell the user in the interim.

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% and both enums (kind, field) are documented in the schema, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only loosely maps to kind via 'wrong, or ask it off' and says nothing about domain, email, suggested, or note beyond the schema text. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a concrete action on a concrete resource: flagging an Atlas card as wrong or requesting its removal. The phrasing 'ask it off' is colloquial but decipherable against the schema's kind enum. It hints at the owner path (atlas_owner_claim) but never explicitly contrasts itself with report-adjacent siblings like atlas_changes or atlas_dataset_changes.

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 gives real routing guidance: a human checks the site first, a guest must supply an email to confirm the link, and owners should go through atlas_owner_claim before correcting. That names an alternative tool and its condition of use. What's missing is a clear statement of when NOT to file a report (e.g. duplicate, already-removed, or dataset-level issues).

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