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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: it is 'free', it is 'read by a human', and it is framed as the fastest path to a fix — context an agent cannot get from annotations. It does not describe turnaround, acknowledgement behavior, or what happens after submission.

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-loaded with the core action and scoped by a compact list of defect examples, followed by two short payoff sentences. The example enumeration is slightly long but each item disambiguates what counts as a valid report, so little is 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 low-complexity, single-required-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the human-review promise adequately. What it omits is routing relative to the many sibling reporting tools, which is the piece an agent most needs to call the right one.

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 documents all six parameters, including the severity enum and the 'never used to rank' note on context. The description adds only a light nudge ('Say what you expected as well as what you got') that maps to the expected field. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Report something wrong with a result') and enumerates concrete defect types (wrong data, filter that did not filter, bad ranking, unreproducible number), so the agent knows exactly what class of action this is. It fails to distinguish itself from close siblings like report_correction, report_gap, or dispute_finding, which is the main clarity gap.

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 examples imply when to use it (when a result was wrong, unfiltered, misranked, or useless), which is more than nothing. But with four sibling tools covering adjacent reporting/dispute territory, no explicit routing rule ('use this instead of X when...') is provided, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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