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

The description adds important behavior beyond the annotations: the report goes to a human-reviewed queue and does not change the live site. It also tells the agent not to tell the user the data has been corrected, and notes the tool result itself says so. This gives the agent the necessary side-effect context.

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 well structured, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and each sentence earns its place: examples of inaccuracies, when to use it, what it does not do, and how to write the report. It is dense but not bloated.

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 a full input schema, an output schema, and meaningful annotations, the description completes the picture by explaining the non-mutating report flow, the human-review queue, required problem phrasing, and evidence URL. The agent can use this tool correctly without guessing.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds guidance on how to fill in fields, especially the need to say what is wrong in a sentence and to include the URL as evidence. It reinforces why evidence_url matters, going slightly beyond 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?

The description states precisely what the tool does: report an inaccuracy in the catalogue. It names the resource (CrowdSpace catalogue) and adds clear examples, and explicitly distinguishes itself from a mutation tool by saying it does NOT change the site. This makes it easy to select over siblings.

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 gives explicit use scenarios: when a reader points out an error or when the agent sees a catalogue/source disagreement. It also gives a warning about what not to claim after using it. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tools are different enough that this is still a clear, useful guideline.

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