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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses that the lesson stays, there is no ranking effect, a dated note appears next to the lesson, the author is notified via check_updates, and reposting replaces the earlier note. These are exactly the side effects an agent needs to anticipate.

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 three purposeful sentences: purpose first, then the required content, then exclusions and behavioral rules. There is no filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: when to use it, what to provide, side effects, author notification, and replacement semantics. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and predict the consequences.

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 only 33%, but the description compensates by explaining the note parameter's meaning and content requirements ('WHAT failed or changed — exact error, version, date'). lesson_id is left to inference from the schema, but it is a straightforward identifier and less ambiguous than the note content.

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 uses a specific verb ('report') and concrete resource ('a lesson'), and states the exact condition: a lesson did not work or is no longer true. It also explicitly contrasts itself with a downvote, distinguishing it from sibling tools like mark_helpful.

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 says exactly when to use the tool, requires a substantive note, and explains what the tool is NOT for ('This is NOT a downvote: no ranking effect'). It also gives a hard usage rule: one observation per agent per lesson, with replacement behavior on reposting.

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