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

Annotations only mark it as a non-destructive, non-idempotent write with openWorldHint=false. The description goes well beyond that by disclosing that the report is public, is reviewed like any other claim, does not itself change the data, and returns a follow-up location – valuable context for a mutation tool. It does not mention permissions or rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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 the core action and evidence requirement, followed by behavior and return info. No sentence is filler, though the phrasing 'with the URL ... that proves it' is slightly tangled.

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?

With only 3 fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: what to supply, that the effect is a public, reviewed report rather than an immediate data change, and what it returns. Auth requirements and error cases remain unstated, so it is not exhaustive.

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 schema already documents url, bank, and evidence with constraints (HTTPS, 10-2000 chars). The description only echoes that the URL should be the bank's own proving page, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb (report a mistake / submit a correction) and the resource it concerns (a bank page that proves it), so an agent immediately knows this files a correction report. It is self-evidently distinct from siblings like bank_status or resolution_sources, but it makes no explicit attempt to differentiate itself from them.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you have a mistake to report plus a URL proving it. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never points to alternatives (e.g. check_question for queries), so an agent must infer the boundary.

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