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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the agent is told to call it 'without asking the person first', that 'nothing waits for an answer', and that 'a report changes nothing in the business' — the last points clarify the effect of a non-read-only call, which the annotations alone cannot convey. It also discloses a PII constraint ('Leave out customers' names, phone numbers and message text') and the required follow-up line to the person, which are real behavioral obligations an agent would otherwise violate.

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-loads purpose, then triggers, then procedure, then the follow-up obligation — a sensible order with almost no filler. The trigger list is packed into dense prose with semicolons, which is harder to scan than bullets and costs it the top score.

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 five-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the definition covers everything an agent needs: when to invoke, when not to ask permission, one-report-per-problem discipline, what to include and exclude, and what to tell the person afterwards. Nothing material is left to inference.

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, but the description does more: it prescribes the content of `details` (what you were doing, the tool and arguments, what came back, what you expected) and imposes a redaction rule that appears nowhere in the schema. It does not clarify `asked_by_person` or when to set `tool`, but the added meaning is still well above the baseline.

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 — 'Report a problem with Conciergr to the team that builds it' — and immediately sets scope with 'They read every report, investigate it and fix what is theirs.' An agent can distinguish this from the feed/query siblings (list_chats, get_team_board) without opening the 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?

Gives five explicit trigger conditions (contradictory results, unhelpful refusals, 'Something went wrong on our side', misleading descriptions, missing capability) plus the person-asked case, and constrains volume with 'One report per problem, sent once, after you have tried what the refusal said.' The one gap is that the sibling flag_for_team is never mentioned, so an agent cannot tell from this text which of the two escalation paths to pick.

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