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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful traits: a rate limit ('Limited per day'), a privacy constraint ('no note contents, keys or personal data'), and the recipient. It does not say what happens after submission (confirmation, whether a human is notified), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the guidance is dense but earns its space. The semicolon-chained parameter gloss at the end is a bit packed, but nothing is redundant.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone; it covers purpose, exclusions, privacy, rate limiting, and most params. The gaps are the undocumented app_version parameter and the absence of any hint about what the call returns or whether it can fail.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters, and it does for four of five: message, where, context, and stack, including a privacy restriction on context. The fifth parameter, app_version, is never mentioned and the required marker on message is not restated.

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 an error report to Harsha, who builds Caddie') plus the triggering condition ('when a Caddie tool or the Caddie app fails'). No sibling tool does anything similar, so an agent can identify it immediately.

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 when ('tool or app fails in a way that looks like a bug') and an explicit when-not ('not for wrong input you can fix yourself'). That exclusion is exactly the discrimination an agent needs to avoid filing fixable-input mistakes as bugs.

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