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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the record is stored as a correction with an [issue] prefix, the author and operator are the audience, and authentication via FIXLORE_KEY is required. It does not mention duplicate handling, which matters for a non-idempotent write.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the storage/visibility consequence, then the auth prerequisite. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers purpose, audience, storage form, and auth. The remaining gap is the meaning of the id parameter and duplicate/retry behavior for a non-idempotent write, which the low schema coverage leaves unfilled.

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 25%, so the description must compensate; it partially does by enumerating the issue kinds that map to the kind enum. But id (which entity is being corrected) and body are left entirely unexplained, and the environment parameter is only documented in 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States a specific verb (report) and resource (an experience that is dangerous, outdated, wrong, or not reproducible), plus what happens to it (stored as a correction with an [issue] prefix). It does not distinguish itself from near-name siblings report_fix_result and report_outcome, which an agent must choose between.

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?

Implied usage is clear (file a report when something is wrong with a fix/experience), and the FIXLORE_KEY prerequisite is stated. However there is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing hint vs report_fix_result or report_outcome, which are the most confusable siblings.

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