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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the report is public, is reviewed 'like any other claim', and does not itself change the data — which reconciles the readOnlyHint=false with the user's likely fear of mutating the dataset. It also discloses the return value (report id) and where to follow it, which annotations never cover.

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, followed by the constraint and the outcome. No filler and no repetition of the schema.

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 simple four-parameter submission tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, nothing an agent needs is missing: causality (does not alter data), visibility (public review), and follow-up URL are all stated.

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 would be 3; the description earns an extra point by clarifying the nature of the 'evidence' parameter (a proving URL, ideally the official authority page) in a way the raw 'http(s) URL of the page that proves it' does not fully convey. It says nothing extra about the optional race/election scoping parameters, which the schema already handles.

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 mistake or a missing election') plus the required artifact ('a URL that proves it'). This is immediately distinguishable from all listed siblings, which are read-style query tools (election_status, pollster, dataset_health, etc.).

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 clear context for when to use it: reporting an error or an absent election, including the guidance that evidence should ideally be the official authority page. It does not name an alternative or explicitly say when not to use it (e.g., that questions about how data is collected belong to check_question), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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