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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: 'A person reads every report' discloses human review, and 'Limit: 20 per address per hour' discloses a rate limit. It does not say what is returned or whether a duplicate report is rejected, so it is not fully rich, but it goes well beyond the annotations.

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?

It is a single dense sentence plus one short sentence, with the core action front-loaded. The long parenthetical list is somewhat heavy but every item earns its place by clarifying valid report kinds. No filler or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description does the needed work: it says the report is stored, that a human reads it, and imposes a rate limit. For a simple 3-parameter write tool this is nearly complete; only the return/confirmation behavior is left unstated, which is a minor omission.

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 67%, and the description supplements the gaps by explaining that the report includes 'the design it concerns' (the `design` param, design id) and 'a short description' (the `detail` param). The enumerated failure modes also disambiguate the `kind` enum values. The remaining gap is minor, since the schema itself carries the enum and required-field info.

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 (stores) and resource (a report about something wrong with 1211's results), and enumerates the concrete problem categories that map to the `kind` enum. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like check_art, create_design, or get_design, which are all about designs rather than reporting faults.

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?

The examples ('a picture refused that should have printed, a wrong price, a picture of the result that does not match...') give the agent clear situational context for when to call this tool. However, it never states when NOT to use it or names an alternative path, so it stops short of explicit exclusion guidance.

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