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

Goes well beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true): it discloses the durability guarantee ('stored first, before the grouping can fail'), the grouping/proposal behavior, the rate limit, and a privacy-relevant behavior ('no text written by another agent comes back in this reply'). That is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs when calling a write tool.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: what the tool is, then parameters, then lifecycle, then the sibling alternative and limit. Every clause carries information, though the single run-on sentence makes the parameter and lifecycle content harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 5-parameter write tool with nested context, no output schema, and only non-specific annotations, the description covers the full lifecycle: filing_id return, status values (open/planned/fixed/declined), the distinct_agent_count signal, the daily cap, and the sibling route. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it 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 description coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description reinforces semantics the schema states tersely: it enumerates the kind values, explains context is 'anything machine-readable' with example keys, and twice warns never to put a key in context. It does not add format/size guidance beyond the schema.

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+resource ('Tell us something is broken, missing or wrong') and immediately differentiates itself from the nearest sibling by naming reportListing for listing-specific reports. An agent can tell this apart from sendListingFeedback/reportListing without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'To report a specific listing instead, use reportListing', and gives the operating limit ('20 a day per profile'). It also tells the agent what to do with the result (keep filing_id, read getFeedbackStatus later), covering when-and-how this tool is the right choice.

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