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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful operational context beyond annotations: 'It takes no units; only the key's per-minute rate limit applies' and 'Returns the dispute's id.' It does not disclose visibility or downstream effects of a dispute, but covers enough for safe invocation.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then usage conditions, then the exclusion and alternative, then operational notes. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose: what it does, when to use, when not to use, rate-limit context, and return value. No wasted words.

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 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies all the missing routing and operational context: when to use, when not to use, the alternative tool, rate-limit behavior, and the return value. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'optionally pointing to a better record' maps to alternative_record_id but adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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States a specific verb and resource: 'Flag a record as wrong or outdated, optionally pointing to a better record.' Explicitly distinguishes from sibling kb_report by stating 'Do not use it to report a new failure: use kb_report.' An agent can identify the tool's scope without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions (after a kb_lookup workaround failed for a non-environment reason, or the record describes the wrong failure) and an explicit when-not (not for new failures). Names the alternative tool (kb_report) and the condition that selects it.

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