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

Annotations provide minimal behavioral signals (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description adds meaningful context: the report enters a human curation queue, is reviewed weekly, and contains no personal data. It does not contradict annotations and adds transparency about side effects and data handling.

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 two concise paragraphs. The first sentence states the purpose directly, the second explains the workflow, and the final sentence gives usage triggers. Every sentence adds value with no redundant or vague content.

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 simple tool with two well-documented params, the description covers purpose, usage triggers, and behavioral outcome. It also clarifies privacy details (no personal data) and the review cycle. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed. The description is fully complete for an agent to invoke this tool 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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both 'query' and 'reason'. The description reinforces that only these two fields are sent, but does not add deeper semantic meaning beyond the schema. Therefore the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Report') and identifies the exact resource ('an answer built from Reecopedia search results') and the scope (wrong, misleading, or incomplete). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like search and fetch by focusing on reporting issues rather than retrieving content.

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 description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Call this when the user flags an answer as wrong, or when you notice the retrieved passages contradict the answer you gave.' It provides concrete, actionable triggers and implies it is not for general feedback or other purposes.

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