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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false but don't explain the workflow. The description adds real value by clarifying that this files a report which a human ('All Too Human') reviews before any change is applied, so the agent knows nothing is mutated immediately and review latency is expected.

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?

A single tight sentence front-loading the action and resource, followed by the review caveat. No filler, though the human-review clause could be integrated more economically.

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 three-parameter report submission with no output schema, the description covers the core action and review behavior, but it leaves the two undocumented parameters (funder_slug, field) and the expected result of a submission unaddressed.

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 33% (only 'correction' is documented in the schema; 'field' and 'funder_slug' are not), so the description is expected to compensate. It merely says 'a field' and 'with the correction' and never explains the field enum values, slug sourcing, or correction format, adding almost nothing beyond the schema.

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States a specific verb and resource: report that a field on a funder profile is wrong or out of date, supplying the correction. It's clear what the tool does, but it never names or contrasts with a sibling such as suggest_funder or report_outcome, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Implies its use case (a field is wrong or stale and you have a correction) and notes the human review step, but gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives like suggest_funder, and no prerequisites such as needing a valid funder_slug from search_funders.

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