Report a wrongly-flagged site

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the action is a submission for review and correction, implying it's non-destructive and asynchronous. However, it does not state what happens after submission (e.g., response, confirmation) or any side effects, leaving some ambiguity for a mutation-like action.

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?

One sentence carries the full purpose with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the action and intent, making it easy to scan.

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 simple reporting tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what to report and why. It doesn't explain the return value or next steps, but these are not critical for a submission action.

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 both parameters. The description does not add semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('tell pleamo a domain was flagged incorrectly') and the resource (domain), distinguishing it from siblings like check_url and get_status by its reporting intent. The title and description align without tautology.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use this tool (when a domain was wrongly flagged) and implies the expected outcome (review and correction). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough to route an agent correctly.

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