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

With readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false already declared, the description adds the key behavioral fact the annotations cannot convey: reports do not mutate anything automatically but enter a human review queue against public sources. It stops short of disclosing turnaround, auth requirements, or what the submitter receives back.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the purpose and examples front-loaded and the review-process constraint following immediately. The final sentence on source URLs earns its place as actionable submission guidance.

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 5-parameter submission tool with no output schema, the description covers what to report and what happens next (manual review, no automatic change), which is what an agent needs to decide and invoke. It could say more about what the caller gets back or expected review timing, but nothing essential 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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description only adds one piece of guidance, 'include a source URL whenever you can', which reinforces the source_url parameter but adds no syntax or format detail beyond 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States a specific verb (report) and resource (an error in SalesBook) and enumerates the concrete cases: wrong fact, outdated claim, missing deal, company that should not be listed. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling mutation tools like update_listing, which the 'nothing changes automatically' clause implicitly contrasts against.

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 context for use (something wrong in a listing) and explains the downstream process: MaxedS reviews against public sources and corrects the listing. It also advises including a source URL. However, it never explicitly names an alternative tool (e.g. update_listing for direct edits) or states when not to use this tool.

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