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

Annotations provide no meaningful behavioral signals, so the description carries the burden. It discloses key non-obvious effects: submissions are not published, review happens weekly on Monday, accepted items are credited in the record's weekly update, and the service is free. It does not cover response behavior or duplicate handling, but the process details go well beyond annotation defaults.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then policy details, then a schema link. Every sentence adds distinct information, with no redundancy or 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 7 parameters, a nested agent object, and no output schema or annotations. The description explains the review process and links a schema, but stops short of describing what a caller should expect after submission, how to format record values, or how to fill optional fields. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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Schema description coverage is only 43%, and the description compensates minimally by naming 'outdated, unsupported or contradicted' (mirroring the problem enum) and 'with evidence' (pointing toward evidence_url). It adds no meaning for note, confidence, the agent object, or the accepted record formats, leaving the agent dependent on the linked 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States a specific action ('Report a claim in a published record'), the target resource, and the problem categories (outdated, unsupported, contradicted). The title and description clearly distinguish this from siblings like submit_source and submit_usage_receipt by focusing on corrections to existing claims.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a claim in a published record needs correction, and it adds policy context (free, weekly review). However, it does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use guidance or compare with alternatives, so the agent must infer the boundary relative to sibling tools.

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