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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: PII scrubbing before storage, linking to existing pitfalls, and the fact that it's free. These disclose important privacy and deduplication behaviors that are not stated in annotations, enriching the agent's understanding of side effects.

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 exceptionally concise: four short sentences, each adding distinct information (action, privacy, deduplication, cost). No fluff or redundancy exists; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, nested object) and the presence of output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral points: purpose, PII handling, linking, and cost. It could mention explicit usage scenarios relative to sibling tools, but the current description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with meaningful descriptions for every parameter, including nested fields. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb-resource pair 'Report an agent failure,' which clearly states the tool's purpose. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pitfalldb_query, which is for querying, not reporting. The additional context about PII scrubbing and linking further clarifies the tool's function.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for reporting agent failures, which is a distinct usage context from sibling tools. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the differentiation from pitfalldb_query is implicit and clear, qualifying it as 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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