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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that a human reviews every report and that nothing changes automatically, which tells the agent the effect is asynchronous and non-destructive. It does not describe what the agent gets back on submission (confirmation, ticket id, or nothing), which is the remaining behavioral gap for a write tool.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the exclusion, then the behavioral expectation, then the operational advice. Each sentence carries distinct information; nothing is repeated.

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 four-parameter submission tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, exclusions, human review, and how to phrase the report. It is nearly complete; only the post-submission outcome (what the caller observes after reporting) is unaddressed.

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 enum values for `kind` and the meaning of `where` and `message` are already documented. The description restates the essentials ("name the page (`where`) and what would be correct"), which reinforces good usage but adds little beyond the schema text. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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States a specific verb and resource: report missing, wrong or outdated content to the site operator. It also carves out a neighboring domain ("Not for security vulnerabilities"), which is essential given that every sibling tool is a read/discovery tool (findPages, findFaqs, etc.) and this is the only submission route.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it — a wrong, outdated or missing fact, a broken or misleading statement, or a coverage gap a visitor would expect — and names an exclusion (security vulnerabilities). It also gives a quantity convention ("one clear report per issue") that prevents the agent from bundling or spraying reports.

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