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

Adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations: submissions are human-read (async review), never gate on the reporter's relationship, and the provider flag only affects prioritization speed. It does not describe what happens after filing or duplicate handling, but with destructive=false/readOnly=false already declared, this is strong.

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 purpose and is dense with concrete examples; the 'Free, always: correcting our own error is never a paid feature' clause repeats the same idea twice but is short. Nothing materially wasted.

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 7-parameter, no-output-schema submission tool, the definition covers what counts as a valid report, the free/human-review behavior, and the non-gating relationship field. It omits post-submission expectations (acknowledgment, resolution) and overlap with sibling correction tools.

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 schema already explains slug, field, wrong, correct, evidence, and relationship semantics. The prose adds no field-level syntax or format detail beyond what is already in the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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-plus-resource (report that the catalog has a provider wrong) and enumerates concrete error classes (wrong website, logo, APIs not theirs, count mismatch, score), so an agent knows exactly what belongs here. It does not, however, distinguish itself from likely-overlapping siblings such as correct_facts or dispute_finding, so the reader must infer the boundary.

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 clear selection context: use it when our own catalog data is wrong, and it is always free because it concerns our error. No explicit when-not or named alternative to correct_facts/dispute_finding is provided, which keeps it short of a 5.

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