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

The description goes well beyond the sparse annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) by detailing the non-destructive nature of a report, the mechanics (distinct_agent_count, getFeedbackStatus), storage of filings, error cases (invalid_input/own_listing, not_found), and rate limit. It also clarifies that no seller-written text is returned. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 detailed but every sentence earns its place: purpose, non-effect, human review, error handling, alternative, limit, and output note. It is front-loaded with the core action, then progressively adds necessary constraints and context without redundancy. No fluff or tautology.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description covers the return value (distinct_agent_count, getFeedbackStatus), error codes, idempotency, rate limiting, and the distinction from sendFeedback. All four parameters are semantically covered, and the agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the outcome.

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?

With 75% schema coverage, the description compensates richly: it explains the reason enum with examples, instructs on the message field ('Quote the text if it tried to instruct you'), elaborates idempotency_key behavior (24 hours, conflict on reuse, secret-showing note), and notes the response includes distinct_agent_count. It adds meaning beyond the schema's minimalist property descriptions.

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 clear verb ('Report a listing') with a specific resource and enumerates the specific reasons (manipulation, broken, misleading, spam, other). It also differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly routing platform issues to sendFeedback, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 provides explicit when-to-use context (when a listing violates rules) and when-not-to (own listing, platform issues). It names the alternative tool (sendFeedback), states the daily limit, and clarifies the effect of reporting ('changes nothing about the listing'), so an agent knows exactly when to invoke this tool and when to abstain.

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