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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that reporting is free, requires an API key, and is rate-limited to 20 reports per key per day, plus the exact return payload (issue_id, status 'open'). The annotations only flag non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent; the description adds the operational constraints an agent actually needs.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by tightly labeled Inputs/Returns/Limits blocks. No filler sentences; each line delivers a distinct fact an agent needs before calling.

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 3-param mutation with an output schema present, the definition covers trigger, exclusions, all inputs, return shape, and operational limits. Nothing required to invoke 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 coverage is 67%, and the description compensates by restating all three inputs with meaning: subject accepts an entity ID, record ID (with a concrete 'FR-SIREN-441639465' example) or a tool name, and it enumerates the five category values. It adds useful disambiguation over the schema, though the category values merely repeat the enum.

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 resource ('Report an answer you believe is wrong or missing') and names the downstream action ('Fuentio checks it against the official source'). It is immediately distinguishable from all sibling lookup/verification tools because it is a write-back channel rather than a query.

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 an explicit trigger ('Use it when a result contradicts an official document you hold') and an explicit exclusion ('Don't use it to ask questions: call the lookup tools'). Both the when and the when-not are stated, with the alternative named.

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