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

Annotations provide only a title, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits beyond the schema: the tool is free, does not count against the free allowance, works even after the allowance is spent, a human reads every report, and verified data errors on paid x402 calls are refunded on-chain. This is excellent transparency.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses a clear 'USE WHEN' structure followed by the cost/behavioral facts. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the input schema is fully self-documented, the description covers the remaining contextual essentials: when to report, what categories matter, cost implications, and what happens after submission. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call this tool is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some contextual mapping between report categories and examples, but it does not meaningfully explain parameters beyond what the schema already documents. It neither hurts nor greatly improves parameter understanding.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Report a problem or a need directly to the IBANforge operators.' It enumerates concrete use cases (incorrect validation result, stale/missing BIC data, latency, payment blockers), which makes the tool's role unmistakable and distinct from the validation/lookup siblings.

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 'USE WHEN' section gives explicit conditions: a result looks wrong, data is missing, or you hit a quota/payment/capability wall. It does not name specific sibling tools as alternatives, but the feedback tool is clearly differentiated from the functional validation and lookup tools, so the routing is clear enough.

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