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

Goes well beyond the annotations: states the tool is free (no credits), that the team inspects the referenced jobs' inputs and outputs, that personal data/secrets/file contents must be excluded, and that only one report per issue should be sent. These are meaningful operational facts an agent could not infer from readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=false. Slightly short of 5 only because delivery/response behavior is not mentioned.

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-loaded with the core purpose, then exclusions, then prerequisites, then parameter requirements — a logical ordering. It is dense and long for a single-parameter tool, with some repetition of the 'not a model limitation' rule across sentences, but nearly every sentence carries a distinct constraint.

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?

The tool has one nested requestBody whose fields are fully documented in the schema; the description supplies the policy layer (what qualifies, what to include, what to omit) that the schema cannot. With no output schema and a fire-and-forget submission, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds rationale and emphasis the schema does not: always include every affected job in job_ids, cap of 10, and the reason ('a report about a result we cannot find cannot be investigated'). It also instructs naming the operation and describing intent vs. actual behavior, which shapes how message should be written.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Report a problem with the Ludo API itself to the Ludo team') and scopes it to the API surface rather than generated output. This clearly separates it from the generation siblings like createImage or animateSprite, which produce the artifacts the description explicitly says are out of scope.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (API errors, failed/stuck jobs, crashes, doc mismatches, unsupported parameters) and when-not-to-use (model limitations, artifacts, prompt adherence), plus concrete alternatives: retry with a different prompt/model/settings, and call searchDocs before reporting a known limitation. The exclusion list is unusually precise and leaves little room for misrouting.

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