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

Discloses behavior well beyond the single readOnlyHint=false annotation: it is free, capped at 10 reports per tenant per day, and it names concrete failure modes (VALIDATION_ERROR under 10-character intent, RATE_LIMITED with a retry_after field to honor). That is exactly the operational detail an agent needs before calling.

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, front-loaded with the action and trigger, then cost/quota, then failure modes. No filler; each clause carries an operational fact.

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 4-param, no-output-schema meta tool, this covers purpose, quota, and the exact error codes the caller must handle, including the retry_after field. An agent could call it and recover from failures with only this text.

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; the description still adds real meaning by imposing a minimum-intent-length rule and instructing 'describe the task in a sentence,' which narrows how the free-form intent field should be filled. It doesn't cover proposed_shape, attempted_tools, or why_insufficient, but those are self-documenting in the schema.

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: 'File a missing-capability report.' The scope condition ('when no available tool can accomplish your task') makes it unmistakable against any of the ~250 sibling tools, none of which serve this role.

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 trigger condition: use it only when no available tool can accomplish the task. It doesn't enumerate alternatives, but that is implicit given the sheer size of the sibling set. The when-to-use guidance is clear; only a named 'don't use this for X' case is missing.

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