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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the downstream side effect (a re-crawl), its rate limit (at most once per hour per product), and the guarantee that the report is always recorded even when the crawl is throttled. That is exactly the operational context an agent needs before firing a write-like call, and it is consistent with idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the action comes first and the throttling caveat follows. Every clause carries information the agent cannot get from the schema or annotations.

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 no explanation, and the description covers the side effect, throttling and record guarantee. The remaining gap is parameter guidance — particularly what `slug` should contain and whether `reason` is optional.

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 50%: `reason` is documented with maxLength and examples, but the required `slug` has no description anywhere. The description never mentions either parameter — 'per product' only weakly hints that slug identifies the product — so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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States a specific verb and resource ('Flag a listing as outdated or wrong') plus the main side effect ('triggers a re-crawl'). The action is clearly distinct from the sibling read/search tools and submit_product, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Flag a listing as outdated or wrong' gives a clear trigger condition, and the rate-limit note implies this is a last-resort correction path rather than a routine call. No explicit when-not guidance or named alternative is provided.

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