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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. Beyond that, the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the report is 'a signal, not an edit,' never directly changes data, and triggers re-verification against the app's website. It does not describe acknowledgment/response behavior or rate limits, and there is mild tension between readOnlyHint=false and 'never directly changes data,' though the latter refers to app records rather than the report itself.

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 the core purpose and the catalog constraint, and every sentence carries routing or behavioral information. The second sentence is long and packs multiple clauses, but no sentence is wasted.

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 three-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the action, the required enum values, the non-edit semantics, and the sibling routing condition. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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, and the description reinforces the allowed reason enum values and clarifies that name must be a listed/cataloged app. It adds modest semantic flavor (what each reason category means at a high level) but does not go beyond the schema on details formatting.

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 (report) and resource (app issue) and precisely scopes it to apps that are already in the appclap catalog, with concrete examples of issue types. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_app by naming the out-of-catalog case.

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 the trigger condition (wrong, outdated, or missing details on a cataloged app) and the explicit exclusion plus alternative: 'For apps NOT in the catalog, use submit_app instead.' An agent can route correctly without inference.

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