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

Annotations only say this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive call; the description adds the real side effect — the connecting person receives a copy and the answer by email, so the agent should tell them what was sent. It also sets content constraints (no secrets, connection strings or the person's data) and asks for traceability data (briq id, request id), which annotations cannot convey. It stops short of saying what the tool returns or how fast a reply comes.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and triggers before the exclusion list and the content recipe. It is dense and semicolon-heavy, and the privacy warning plus the email-notification sentence could be tightened, but no sentence is 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?

With only two required parameters, no output schema and thin annotations, the description carries the full burden and does: purpose, triggers, exclusions, required report content, privacy rules, and the out-of-band notification to the user. An agent has everything needed to submit a usable report.

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 50% (only topic is documented) so the description must compensate, and it does: it spells out what the message body needs — what you were doing, what you expected, what happened, briq id and request id — and the three topic categories are named in the first sentence. It does not mention the message length limit, but the content guidance is substantive.

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, an idea or a question to the people who build briq' — and the channels named (question/bug/idea) map to the topic enum, so an agent can tell it is the human-escalation path rather than briq_docs or briq_logs.

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 explicit trigger conditions (docs behaviour mismatch, unexplained internal error / 5xx, missing docs, improvement idea) and an explicit exclusion list: not for payment_required, plan_limit, quota_exceeded or policy_violation because those are expected. That is a genuine when/when-not pair rather than an implied use case.

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