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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (non-destructive, not open-world, non-idempotent). The description adds real substance beyond that: a hard privacy constraint ('must not contain credentials, personal data or the user's private content') and an instruction to populate `agent` with the client name and model. It stops short of saying what happens to the report after submission.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then intake guidance, then the agent field, then the privacy constraint. For a 14-parameter tool this is tight and every sentence carries information the caller needs.

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 14-param, three-required submission tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, required narrative content, the identity field, and the privacy limit. It omits post-submission behavior (confirmation, review process) and never hints at `session_id` reuse, though the schema documents the latter.

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 86%, so the schema already documents most fields (baseline 3). The description adds targeted value: it maps the narrative to `goal`/`message`/`suggestion` and explicitly tells the caller to fill `agent` with the client's name and model, resolving the otherwise vague 'name (agent or product)' wording.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Send a problem report about Himalayas to its engineering team') and enumerates the concrete situations it covers (missing capability, bug, unclear docs, unhelpful error, performance). No sibling tool offers feedback, and the definition leaves no ambiguity about what this does.

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 enumerated problem categories act as a clear when-to-use trigger, and it tells the agent what content to include ('Describe the goal, what got in the way and, if known, a suggested fix'). It never states an exclusion or a competing tool, but none exists in this sibling set, so the guidance is sufficient.

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