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

Annotations cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the report is public, it is checked like any other claim, and it never mutates data by itself. It stops short of noting auth needs or rate limits.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the evidence requirement, then the outcome and follow-up URL. Every sentence carries information; nothing is padding.

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?

Despite an output schema that would excuse omitting return details, the description still states the returned report id and where to follow it, and covers the public/moderation nature of the report. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning on top of that by prescribing the quality of the evidence parameter ('ideally the official authority page') and framing the claim parameter as 'what is wrong and what is right'.

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 names a specific action and object: reporting a mistake or a missing election, backed by a proving URL. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by name or scope.

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 gives clear conditions for use (you have found a mistake or missing election) and a prerequisite (a URL that proves it), and clarifies the effect is review, not direct data change. No alternatives or when-not-to-use paths are offered, but the context is sufficient to select it.

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