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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the side effect ('creates the same moderated correction record') and the required write scope, which are the most important behavioral facts. It does not explain moderation implications or response behavior, but covers the essential mutation and permission profile.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the purpose, then states the permission and side-effect. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

The tool has five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description only covers purpose, permission, and record equivalence. Critical selection guidance versus submit_correction and parameter-level details are missing, leaving the description incomplete for confident 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 only 20%, and the description adds little meaning to slug, old_price, new_price, or evidence_url beyond the broad 'price change' and 'evidence-backed' hints. It does not compensate for the largely undocumented parameters.

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 and resource ('Report an evidence-backed aicoolies price change') and hints at the relationship to submit_correction. It does not fully explain what differentiates this tool from submit_correction beyond the specialized name and evidence qualifier, so it stops just short of a 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?

The description mentions the permission requirement ('correction:write') and references submit_correction as the analogous record producer, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use report_price_change instead of submit_correction or when not to use it.

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