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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds the key behavioral fact that the submission goes to human review and nothing auto-publishes, which explains why a write is non-destructive. It omits duplicate-submission behavior, despite idempotentHint=false, and any rate-limit or auth context.

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?

Two tight sentences with the deprecation notice front-loaded, followed by the equivalence and the review outcome. The parenthetical about report_works is slightly dense but every clause carries information.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and eight undocumented parameters, the description covers deprecation, routing, and the human-review outcome but leaves most of the input contract unexplained. An agent could pick the right tool but would be guessing on several required-adjacent fields.

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?

With 8 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden, yet it only explains the 'result' enum values that map to report_works. Parameters like domain, action, details, http_status, observed_at, and evidence_url are given no meaning in either the schema or the description.

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 it is a deprecated alias that behaves identically to submit_update with type report_block (or report_works for 'works'/'official_route_found' results), which tells an agent exactly what resource it reports on and which sibling it mirrors. It stops short of plainly restating 'reports a blocked domain/task' in the body, relying on the title and the submit_update equivalence for that.

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?

'Deprecated alias kept for older clients' plus the title's 'use submit_update' clearly routes the agent to the replacement tool and implicitly excludes new usage. It does not spell out a scenario where calling this tool is actually correct beyond legacy-client compatibility, but that is effectively an exclusion in itself.

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