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

Annotations only give a coarse safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent), and the description adds real behavior: the draft is private and expires after 30 minutes, it returns the exact public text plus digest and consent version, and certain tokens are preserved verbatim while personal data, logs, health readings and secret values are stripped. What it does not cover is draft lifecycle on repeat calls (whether a new draft replaces the prior one) or any rate limiting, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Every rule is substantive but the paragraph is dense and front-loads process guidance rather than the purpose, forcing the reader to assemble what the tool does. There is also overlap between 'Keep notes short and factual' and the schema's length limits, and between 'Never include personal data, logs, health readings or secret values' and the later 'Send a short technical summary, never logs, secrets or personal data.' Splitting into purpose / content rules / consent-and-return would preserve the content with less scanning cost.

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 an 18-parameter, 12-required tool with no output schema, the description covers the consent gate, the sanitization contract, the draft expiry, and even the return payload (public text, digest, consent version). What keeps it from complete is the silent set of required fields, especially evidence (agent-observed vs user-reported), which materially changes what the report asserts and is never explained.

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 only 33% across 18 parameters, so the description has to compensate, and it does for the hardest ones: setupMinutes ('actual setup time'), prerequisites (required keys/accounts/cables/OS versions), steps, tips, exact model-or-null handling, and the agentClient/agentModel split versus hardware. It also prevents the common installation-vs-functionality conflation. However, several required fields carry no meaning anywhere (evidence's agent_observed vs user_reported distinction, tested, blockedOn, resolution, platform, firmware, modVersion), so the coverage gap is narrowed but not closed.

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 ('preparing a sanitized draft' of an installation report) and explicitly bounds it: 'This does not publish,' with publish_installation_report named as the downstream sibling. An agent can tell this apart from publish_installation_report and prepare_feedback without opening any schema.

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 states the trigger ('After setup, ask the owner whether they want to share before preparing'), the required consent step, and the explicit hand-off ('ask explicit approval before publish_installation_report'). The alternative tool and the condition that selects it are both named, so nothing 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.