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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, closed-world, idempotent write, so the description need not restate safety. It usefully enumerates the categories of change worth reporting, but says nothing about what happens after submission (review queue, notification, deduplication) or whether resubmitting the same report has side effects.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the qualifying conditions second; every clause carries information and there is no 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?

This is a mutation tool with three required, entirely undocumented parameters and no output schema, so the description carries most of the burden. It covers the trigger well but leaves an agent unable to determine the expected format of 'path' or the scope of 'message' before calling.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely fails: the 'path' parameter (maxLength 160) is never explained, nor is what 'message' should contain. The change categories loosely map onto the 'field' enum (pricing, limits, steps, status) but 'broken_link' and 'other' go unaddressed.

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 ('Submit a field report') plus the exact triggering conditions (fee tier, KYC rule, bank rail, withdrawal limit changes). It is clearly distinct from siblings like calculate_trade_cost or get_guide, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 conditional clause effectively tells the agent when to invoke: when a fee tier, KYC rule, bank rail or limit has changed. No exclusions or alternative channels are mentioned, so the agent must infer that nothing else should be used for corrections.

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