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

Annotations already cover safety (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), but the description adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot: that a re-crawl is throttled to once per hour per product, and that the report itself is always recorded even when the re-crawl is skipped. It still omits what response/confirmation the caller gets back.

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 sentences, zero padding, and the core action is front-loaded before the rate-limit caveat. Every clause adds information an agent needs.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers the key operational caveats (throttled re-crawl, guaranteed report record). The remaining gap is failing to identify what 'slug' refers to, which is the one required input.

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?

At 50% schema coverage the description needed to compensate but says nothing about parameters. The required 'slug' has no description anywhere, so an agent must guess whether it is a product slug, URL path, or internal listing id, and the description never explains what the optional 'reason' is for.

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States a specific verb+resource ('flag a listing as outdated or wrong') plus the immediate side effect ('triggers a re-crawl'). No sibling tool (compare_products, find_alternatives, get_product, search_products, submit_product) does anything similar, so an agent can distinguish it on sight.

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 trigger condition is implied by the words 'outdated or wrong', which tells an agent broadly when to reach for it, but there is no explicit when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative (e.g. correcting via submit_product instead of reporting).

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