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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add one genuinely valuable trait: 'A human reviews it before anything changes,' which tells the agent the write is queued and not immediately destructive. It stops short of saying what happens after submission, whether reports are deduplicated, or what confirmation is returned.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the review guarantee, then the required content. No filler and nothing buried.

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 low-complexity, four-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description communicates the workflow and the review behavior well, but leaves item_id undocumented and gives no sense of what the tool returns or whether duplicate reports are accepted.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it names item title, the message ('what is wrong'), and a source. The fourth parameter, item_id, is never mentioned, and the title-vs-id distinction and source format remain undefined.

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 a factual error or missing information in ChronoDrawer') and gives a concrete example ('e.g. a wrong date'). This is instantly distinguishable from every sibling, which are all read/retrieval tools (get_entity, get_month, search_chronodrawer).

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 description clearly scopes the trigger condition — you use this when you find a factual error or a gap in the data — and closes the loop on what to include. It does not, however, mention conditions like duplicate reports, rate limits, or explicitly contrast with simply reading via the sibling tools.

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