Report missing or wrong data

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false) by disclosing cost (free, not counted as a lookup), notification behavior ('nothing is mailed to it automatically'), and downstream latency/workflow ('Registry records are corrected at the source (ONRC) and arrive with the next snapshot'). These are exactly the side-effect and expectation-setting details an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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 core action, then compresses the kind taxonomy, the cost guarantee, the contact caveat and the correction cadence into minimal prose. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 values need no explanation. For a free-text report submission tool the description covers what to send, how to classify it, what it costs and what happens afterward, leaving no material gap for correct invocation.

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 the schema already documents cui, kind, contact and message. The description restates the kind taxonomy and cui usage and adds only the 'nothing is mailed automatically' clause, which is behavioral rather than semantic. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 ('Tell the Leadgen founder what is missing or wrong') and immediately enumerates the report categories, making it unmistakable against the sibling lookup/enrichment tools. An agent can tell this is a feedback channel, not a data-retrieval call, without opening the schema.

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 per-case routing: 'gap' for missing field/firm/source, 'wrong_record' plus its cui for a bad company record, plus bug and idea. It also supplies the incentive condition ('Free, never counted as a lookup'), which steers an agent away from treating it as a billable lookup. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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