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

Discloses operational behavior well beyond the annotations: a 20-per-hour ceiling returning 429, a 404 not_released gate until reports are enabled for the workspace, a 403 for unclaimed sandbox workspaces, and the credential requirement. It also states the semantic effect ('changes no price; the team reads every report') and that it returns the report's id, which annotations alone would 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-loaded with the action and the triggering situations, then error codes and prerequisites; almost every sentence carries new information. Minor redundancy in restating that note is the person's own words and its 2000-character cap, which the schema already covers.

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 7-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers trigger conditions, required data per reason, return value, auth, workspace-claiming prerequisite, rate limit and the two expected error responses. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter logic the schema lacks: the check_id, item_name, computed_price, expected_price and currency set should be supplied specifically when the reason concerns a price. That conditional bundling ('For a price, send its check_id...') is real value on top of the field docs.

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?

Uses a specific verb (report) plus the exact resource and scope: a wrong price, wrong item, broken flow, or an idea, filed on the end user's behalf. An agent can separate this from price-mutating siblings like verify_price or contribute_price_data because the description explicitly frames it as a tell-the-vendor channel rather than a price operation.

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?

Gives concrete triggers tied to a sibling's output ('when a price from price_from_capture is off', 'wrong_item when it named the wrong thing') and clarifies that nothing is corrected automatically. It stops short of naming a preferred alternative for the case where the agent actually wants a re-price, but the context is otherwise unambiguous.

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