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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, open-world, non-idempotent). The description adds genuinely useful context that anonymous reports are weighted down, but it never states what the report actually changes on the corpus side or whether repeat reports accumulate, which matters for a non-idempotent write.

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 compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Minor jargon ('routing flywheel') costs a little clarity but the sentence still earns its place by explaining the payoff of reporting.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. However, for a four-parameter write tool with 0% schema coverage, leaving 'domain' and 'note' undefined and the effect of the report unstated leaves an agent guessing at correct invocation.

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% across four parameters, so the description must carry the load. 'Cited corpus item' loosely maps to item_id and 'helped' to success, but domain and note are entirely unexplained, and no allowed values or formats are given.

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 specific verb and resource: reporting whether a cited corpus item helped, with the downstream effect (improving the corpus/routing). It is clearly distinct from read_corpus_item or search_corpus, though it never names a sibling to contrast against, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is implied by 'cited corpus item' — report after a corpus item was used — but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as corpus_route or corpus_item. An agent can infer the context but not the boundaries.

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