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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which is a bare safety profile. The description adds the substantive behavior: a consent gate, a mandatory deduplication lookup, and a privacy constraint that health details must be excluded beyond what the bug needs — none of which is derivable from the 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?

Three sentences, each carrying a distinct rule: purpose plus consent, the lookup-and-branch workflow, and the content constraint. The most important precondition is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 non-destructive write tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers consent, deduplication, field selection and content limits. The only gap is what the agent should expect after submission, such as a confirmation or new issue identifier, which matters slightly more here because no output schema exists to answer it.

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 75% and already documents title and details, but the description supplies the conditional exclusivity between issueId and the kind/title/details trio, which the flat schema does not express. That is real added meaning, though it does not elaborate on the kind enum values beyond what the schema shows.

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 bug or an idea to the TrainRec team. It also distinguishes itself from the search sibling by naming find_issues as a prerequisite step rather than a duplicate action.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition (only after the person agrees to), an explicit ordering rule (call find_issues first), and a branch rule: pass issueId when a match exists, otherwise pass kind, title and details. Nothing about when to call this versus its sibling is left to inference.

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