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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and closed-world. The description adds meaningful context beyond those hints: reports are read by Cardboard staff along with the person's name and email, submission requires consent, and the result returns a reference.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the action and purpose, then adds consent and return behavior. It is efficient overall, though the three kind categories repeat information already present in the enum schema.

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 three-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the essential behavior: what is sent, who reads it, the consent requirement, and that a reference is returned. No output schema exists, but the return value is summarized adequately.

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 three parameters are already documented, including the enum values for kind. The description restates the kind categories in prose but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema, and it does not discuss the optional project parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it sends a report to Cardboard's team. It clearly distinguishes the three report kinds (bug, request, feedback) and is unlike any sibling tool, which are mostly media/timeline operations.

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 gives clear categories for when to use the tool: something went wrong, a missing capability, or general feedback. It also states the consent prerequisite (only after the person says yes). It does not name alternatives or when not to use it, but no sibling alternative exists for this purpose.

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