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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does: 'Read by a human' signals the report is not automatically acted on, and 'the only way we learn that an agent failed here' establishes the tool's feedback-only nature. This goes beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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?

Three compact sentences front-load the action and scope, then add the human-read behavior and the fallback rationale. Every sentence earns its place 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?

For a simple reporting tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the essential context an agent needs: what to report, why it exists, and who reads it. It doesn't describe post-call behavior in detail, but that is a minor gap for a fire-and-forget report action.

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?

The schema already covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving concrete scenarios ('a page you could not read, data you could not find, a request that was refused') that map to kind/summary selection, supplementing the enum and descriptions.

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 names a specific action ('Report something') and a precise resource ('on this site or endpoint that stopped you from completing a task'), with concrete examples and the human-read outcome. This clearly differentiates it from the commerce/search sibling tools.

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?

It gives an explicit triggering condition—being blocked from completing a task—and a direct instruction to use it instead of giving up silently. It doesn't spell out exclusions or alternative fallback tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route here.

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