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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description adds genuine new context: reports land in 'Console → Reports', are 'Audited', and the operation is 'Dry run by default'. It doesn't restate the schema's dry_run details, adding destination and auditability instead.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then organized by reason. It is dense with colon/dash clauses and runs fairly long, but nearly every clause is load-bearing (media_id rules, note requirement, dry-run default), so it stays efficient rather than padded.

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?

An output schema exists so return-value explanation is unneeded, and the description covers the remaining essentials: the reason taxonomy's least obvious cases, the note/media_id coupling, and the audited dry-run-default behavior. An agent can call this correctly without opening anything else.

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 is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter semantics the schema lacks: which reason forces media_id, that `image` needs a note stating ownership and the change, and that `image_link` defaults to the first image with a link and preserves the link as-is.

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 an entry to the Verified Handles team') and anchors it to a familiar surface ('as its page's Report form does'). It also distinguishes the reporting pathway from the direct mutation siblings by explaining that delete/merge are achieved by reporting as `incorrect` or `other`.

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 conditions for the tricky reasons: `image` requires a media_id and an ownership note, `image_link` applies only to an image with a link (referencing get_entry's images[].link), and delete/merge should be reported as `incorrect`/`other`. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling tools like delete_entry or merge_entry as alternatives to avoid, leaving some routing to inference.

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