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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the 202 response, the human-review process, and that score/band are ignored, and it explains why unreviewed owner edits are disallowed. It does not cover authentication, rejection behavior, or what happens after review, but the core behavior is visible.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the rationale about unreviewed edits is relevant to understanding the 202/human-review behavior. The wording is a little dense and contains an awkward aside, but every sentence contributes useful context.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description does a decent job covering the request flow and constraints, but it leaves parameter coverage incomplete, does not clarify ownership verification, and does not describe outcomes after human review. It is adequate with clear gaps.

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 only 13%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by enumerating editable fields and stating that score/band are ignored, but it omits the semantics of 'slug' and 'contact', and leaves ambiguity about whether 'contact' is correctable. Compensation is partial, not complete.

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 names a specific action ('propose corrections') and a target ('what we say about you'), and lists the editable fields: name, description, url, industries, tags. It is clearly an owner-facing correction flow, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like report_correction.

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 gives clear context: this is for proposing corrections that will be applied by a person, and it explicitly states that score and band are not owner-settable and will be ignored. It does not name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is reasonably clear.

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