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

Annotations cover the safety profile (non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world, non-idempotent), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the report is human-reviewed, nothing is published automatically, and the record is unchanged until verified. It also adds a privacy constraint about not sending personal details, which is genuine behavioral guidance not captured anywhere in the structured fields.

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-loads the alias/disambiguation note, then behavior, then input expectations, then the privacy caveat; each sentence carries purpose. Slightly longer than strictly necessary but no filler sentences.

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 no explanation; the description covers what the tool does, what happens after submission (human review, no auto-publish), and what inputs to gather. Complete for an agent to invoke confidently.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds usage framing: 'give the place id, what is wrong in a sentence or two, and the official page the user saw, if any,' clarifying that source_url is optional and message is free-form user wording. This meaningfully supplements 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 action (file a correction), identifies it as an alias of dogpolicies_report_correction with a compatibility rationale, and enumerates concrete trigger cases (fee increase, beach closure, pet limit change). An agent can distinguish it from sibling read tools like get_rule or search_places 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?

Gives a clear trigger condition: use when a user reports a rule is wrong or has changed, with three illustrative examples. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when NOT to use it, keeping it just short of a 5.

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