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

Annotations already tell the agent this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds beyond that by disclosing the side effect: the disagreement is queued for manager review and a confirmation with disposition details is returned. It doesn't clarify permission requirements or rate limits, but the operational consequence is clear.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences: the action and effect come first, followed by the usage condition and required inputs. No wasted phrasing.

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 six-param mutation with 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies what's missing: the queueing behavior, the trigger condition, and the return confirmation. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds value by naming engineID and ruleID as 'shown in the diagnosis' and requesting 'your reason,' linking the parameters to the listDiagnoses output. It omits issueID, reportID, and catalogIndex, so it doesn't fully compensate 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Reports that you disagree with a diagnosis shown by the listDiagnoses tool') and adds the consequence ('queued for manager review'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the read-only sibling listDiagnoses.

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?

Explicitly says to use it 'after listDiagnoses when you believe a rule violation was incorrectly diagnosed or classified.' It names the prior tool, the triggering condition, and the required inputs. The condition for invoking it is unambiguous.

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