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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing storage and retention ('stored for our review ... kept one year'), that it has no immediate effect ('does not change any answer now'), that nobody replies, and that personal information is not needed. This is exactly the context a caller needs before filing a report.

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 action and purpose, and the trailing sentences on retention, no-follow-up, and privacy are all load-bearing. The first sentence is long and list-heavy, but each clause adds a distinct trigger condition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers the lifecycle, retention, and privacy expectations for a write tool whose annotations mark it non-read-only and non-destructive. The remaining gap is that most input fields are left to the schema without any descriptive coverage.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains the category values in prose (largely mirroring the enum description) but says nothing about mpn, page, tool, brand, block_id, or doc_sha256, leaving six parameters unexplained in both places.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Sends PartsPlan a report') and then enumerates the concrete trigger conditions (wrong document, wrong page/section, extraction mismatch, missing document, wrong manufacturer, tool error). None of the sibling tools do anything similar, so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

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?

It clearly states the condition for use: an answer that did not match the datasheet or blocked a task, with the six trigger scenarios spelled out. It does not name an alternative or a 'do not use when' case, but no sibling competes with it, so the guidance is effectively complete.

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