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

Annotations only say the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, not open-world, not destructive. The description adds substantial behavior: it creates a record but does not fix anything, cannot make the tool work, must not promise a timeline, and duplicate filings return the existing report with created=false. No contradiction with annotations.

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 long but every sentence carries essential operational guidance. It is front-loaded with purpose and uses the rest to explain edge cases and anti-patterns. A slightly tighter phrasing could earn 5, but the length is justified given the tool's nuance.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers return behavior (duplicate returns existing report, created false), what makes a report actionable, what to include, what to avoid, and what the tool cannot do. It leaves no gap an agent needs to call it correctly.

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%, but the description goes far beyond the schema: it explains why connector_slug is required for integration, that error_text must be verbatim and untrimmed, that summary should be the person's words, and that tool_name must be the exact name as called. It also tells the agent never to paste arguments because they are user data. This adds meaning the schema alone lacks.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Report a BUG to Elaichi', and immediately disambiguates from access_request.create (permission refusals) and search_tools (missing tools). An agent can instantly tell what this tool is for and what it is not for.

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 explicit when-to-use conditions (person says something is broken, call failed for a vendor/empty-result/field-wrong reason) and explicit when-not-to-use (permission refusals → access_request.create, missing tool → search_tools). It even tells the agent to pass existing data rather than interrogate, which is critical usage guidance.

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