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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the admin-only restriction, which is useful beyond the annotations, but says nothing about side effects (notifications, whether resolving reassigns the booking) or repeat-call behavior despite idempotentHint=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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb, resource, states and permission scope all appear immediately. Nothing redundant against the title 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?

For a state-mutating tool with openWorldHint=true and no output schema, the description is thin: it doesn't explain the effect of each terminal status on the underlying booking, whether the operation is reversible, or where the reportId comes from. Annotations cover safety, so this is adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies the status values loosely — 'reviewed, resolved or dismissed' — but omits PENDING, which is in the enum, and adds nothing about reportId (presumably sourced from list_wrong_assignment_reports). Partial compensation only.

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 gives a specific verb ('Mark ... as') and a precise resource ('wrong-assignment report'), plus the target states. An agent can distinguish it from list_wrong_assignment_reports and report_wrong_assignment from the verb and effect alone. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

'(team admins)' communicates a permission prerequisite, which is real usage guidance. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over siblings — e.g. that the reportId must first be obtained via list_wrong_assignment_reports, or that report_wrong_assignment creates the report this resolves. Usage is only implied.

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