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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: 'Nothing on UPFRONT changes until a person checks it: the correction is passed on, not fixed' explains the human-review pipeline, and 'Every request files a separate report' explains the non-idempotent behavior flagged by idempotentHint=false. It also discloses the 1,000-character claim limit.

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-loads the action and a one-line usage rule, then uses a compact param glossary. Every sentence earns its place — the example corrections and the enum list are necessary because the schema provides neither.

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?

Covers what the tool does, when to use it, all six parameters, the length constraint, and the downstream consequence (human review, one report per call). No output schema exists, and the description explains the outcome well enough that one isn't needed.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does: it enumerates every allowed value of 'kind' (rows, view, section, bags, entry, parking, transit, food, other), describes venue/section/row scoping, the claim content and length cap, and that source is optional provenance.

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 action and resource — passing a fan's correction of an UPFRONT fact to a human reviewer — with three concrete examples ('section 112 has 18 rows, not 17'). It is clearly the only write/report tool among read-only siblings like section_info and venue_info.

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 is for corrections the user gives or asks to send to UPFRONT' gives a clear triggering condition. It does not explicitly name a sibling to use instead when the user just wants to read a fact, but the read/write distinction is implicit and unmistakable.

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