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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it reports issues to the operator and explicitly returns no figures. It does not contradict the annotations, which mark the tool as non-read-only, non-destructive, and non-idempotent, consistent with submitting a report.

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 short, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes the key output caveat. The bilingual duplication is compact and does not obscure the primary English statement.

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?

Given four fully documented parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering side-effect hints, the description is largely complete. It could say more about what confirmation or response the reporter receives, but the key behavioral constraint is stated.

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 100%, so the schema already explains the code, flow, month, and message parameters in detail. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema baseline.

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 a specific verb and resource: report a data problem to the operator. It gives concrete examples of issue types (differs from official figures, missing, wrong name) and distinguishes the tool from data-retrieval siblings by noting that no figures are returned.

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?

It clearly explains when to use the tool by describing the kinds of data problems that should be reported. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the reporting purpose is sufficiently distinct from the sibling retrieval tools.

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