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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the agent already knows this is a non-destructive local write. The description adds the useful detail that the report is "stored privately for research," giving data-retention context, but it never states that the report is persisted/creates a record, nor whether it can be updated or duplicated.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The word "Optionally" is slightly ambiguous but costs little space.

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 no output schema, 0% schema coverage on three parameters, and a silent mutation, the description should explain how to obtain query_id, what happens on submission, and how outcome should be chosen. None of that is present, so an agent can invoke it but not confidently.

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 compensate. It loosely maps to outcome ("whether a previous search helped") and missing ("which information is missing"), but never explains the query_id parameter's provenance or the meaning of the enum values useful/incomplete/irrelevant, leaving a third of the parameters opaque.

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?

States a specific verb (report) and a specific payload: whether a previous search helped and what information was missing. It contrasts implicitly with the sibling search_public_sources, which performs searching rather than collecting feedback, though the distinction is not made explicit.

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?

"Optionally report" and "a previous search" imply this is post-search feedback, which gives some usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, no mention that it requires a query_id from a prior search, and no reference to the sibling tool.

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