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

Annotations only give destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false; they say nothing about side effects or returns. The description adds real value by disclosing that the call returns diagnostic entity context ('unreviewed fields, what its flow is scoped to'), which is behavior beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The parenthetical after the return clause ('which is often the explanation of a wrong figure') earns its place by motivating the field. Slightly dense with em-dash clauses, but tight overall.

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, the description steps in to describe what comes back (entity context). Combined with the trigger, exclusion, and required-parameter meaning, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly. A brief note on downstream effect or permissions would complete it.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description reinforces the meaning of the report content ('a figure a person says is off') and loosely frames entity as the answer's source, but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and object: 'Record that an ANSWER was wrong: a figure a person says is off.' This is far more specific than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but it draws a boundary against error/refusal logging, so an agent can place it.

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?

Gives a clear trigger (a reported wrong figure) and an explicit exclusion ('Not for refusals or errors, which are already logged'). The exclusion is valuable routing guidance. It stops short of naming sibling tools as alternatives, so it is short of a 5.

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