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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavior: reports go to game operators, duplicate reports are merged automatically, and repeated reports should not be filed. It also clarifies that ordinary game-rule failures are not actionable bugs, which is crucial for correct invocation.

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 long but front-loads the core purpose and then organizes exclusions and inclusion criteria clearly. The length is justified by the need to prevent false-positive bug reports, though it could be slightly tightened without losing meaning.

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 there is no output schema and the tool is a mutation/reporting action, the description covers the key decision criteria, exclusions, duplicate handling, and reporting expectations. An agent has enough information to decide whether and how to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents title, details, bearer, and category. The description does not add parameter-level format or syntax details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: report a genuine bug or broken behaviour to the game operators. It clearly distinguishes this from normal gameplay actions by listing what must never be reported and defining the exact conditions under which reporting is appropriate.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use criteria in three named cases (contradicted rule, server error, implausible values) and explicit when-not-to-use cases such as cargo hold full, insufficient credits, cooldowns, and refused actions. It also tells the agent to err on the side of not reporting when in doubt.

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